A time to debate

MAYDAY.US has posted on its Facebook page the below article of New Hampshire Republican Jim Rubens appearing in the Concord Monitor.

Jim's article sets out a three part proposal for remedying the present system of bipartisan political corruption.

The third part of this proposal is to "remove all political spending and contribution limits" because "attempts to limit private political spending have failed and the First Amendment protects the right of wealthy and well-organized people to speak using as much money as they wish."

This is probably contrary to what many MAYDAY supporters envision for reform.

I think it is time for debate here.

It is time for debate for reasons of policy and pragmatism.

People who believe deeply in the need for reform have differing ideas about the importance of free speech rights, the ways in which free speech needs to be protected, and how reform can be achieved while at the same time protecting free speech rights. Discussion and debate here may contribute to valuable compromising by interested parties for purposes of reaching agreement about reform actions to be tried.

Pragmatically, I believe there are proposals for reform that will never get passed, or will not get passed in the next two to four years. I may be wrong about that, but those who are advocating such proposals should enter into debate and discussion here, with a view to possible outcomes. One possible outcome is that such persons make headway in persuading others that only their preferred reform idea will do the trick. Another possible outcome is that such persons come to the conclusion that their preferred reform will not happen, and they need to settle for second best. Participating in the discussion and debate may help in getting a second best for reform, as opposed to no reform.

There is much to put forth in the debate which I think is needed here.

I will save for later what I think should be put forth in the debate (assuming debate takes place), except, because I have not been able to get any reaction to a particular idea I have put out, I will try again here.

Can we employ our immense data capture technology to battle corruption?

In particular, can we make Congressional offices, and the conduct of Congressional business, much more transparent by capturing in electronic form everything that transpires in which Congressional offices and Congressional staff participate? This would include office meetings, out of office meetings, telephone conversations, and email and other social media use by Congressional offices and staff. All the captured data would be put on the Internet and searchable.

Would that help in battling the corruption?

I hope you think debate is needed here, as do I, and you will try to contribute to it happening.

My Turn: A remedy for bipartisan political corruption

By JIM RUBENS

For the Monitor

Wednesday, December 24, 2014
(Published in print: Wednesday, December 24, 2014)

‘A rare bipartisan success” crowed the Wall Street Journal on passage of the $1.1 trillion “cromnibus” spending bill, supported by House and Senate leaders John Boehner and Harry Reid, President Obama and the New Hampshire Congressional delegation, other than Rep. Carol Shea-Porter.

The bipartisan success is that Congress was once again able to duck its core obligation to craft a fiscally sustainable budget, adding another several hundred billion dollars to the nation’s credit card. Another bipartisan success is the gargantuan incumbent protection amendment snuck into the 1,603-page bill just hours before the House voted on the bill without reading it.

The amendment protects incumbents because a single donor and spouse can now give up to $3.1 million over each two-year election cycle to the national political party committees. The two parties and the entrenched incumbents they nearly always protect will now have even bigger war chests to fend off challengers. A small number of big-money donors with their usually narrow, self-serving agendas have now gained hammerlock control over our already bought and paid-for Congress.

Apologists claim that the mega-donor incumbent protection amendment is needed to offset the burgeoning mega-donor super PACs, ostensibly not controlled by the two parties. Having lost my primary against party-backed Scott Brown, I can testify with certainty that most super PAC money hews to the preferences of party leaders in the House and Senate.

Here’s a juicy detail about the amendment for those who think Congress and the special interests feeding at the public trough have in any way been reformed by the 2014 elections. The amendment was drafted at the request of Reid by Marc Elias, the same Perkins Coie attorney who successfully argued for the super PAC loophole before the Federal Election Commission. And the amendment specifically permits mega-donor contributions for any type of party legal work, for which Perkins Coie has collected more than $40 million since 2000.

There is an even darker side to the ever-more-corrupt relationship between favor-seeking donors and cash-hungry parties and their incumbents. The mega-donor-incumbent (M-I) complex has made Washington unresponsive to the needs and wishes of the American people.

It is well established that industrial monopolies suppress competition, consumer choice and product innovation, and stifle economic growth and material progress.

With passage of the cromnibus incumbent protection amendment, the M-I complex is doing the same to Washington politics. The monopolization of campaign money by the two parties and their aligned super PACs has made it more difficult for insurgent, challenger and non-establishment candidates to communicate with voters. The media tends to ignore candidates unable to win the mega-donor “money primary.” This is how the M-I complex suppresses debate about disfavored and uncomfortable issues and positions. So, voters hear little about the hard choices needed to balance the budget, about regulatory capture of fiscal and monetary policy by Wall Street, or about national security alternatives to endless war.

To revive healthy political debate, bring choice back to voters and address our nation’s challenges before they bury us, here is a three-part alternative to the present system of corruption.

∎ Enact a public elections finance system for candidates voluntarily opting out of the current corrupted money system. Each two years, every voter is given a $50 tax rebate voucher assignable to and spendable only by in-district candidates for Congress or president. As shown in Maine, which has a state-level public elections finance system, candidates and elected officials preferring to focus on all of their constituents have the financial incentive to do so.

∎ Require searchable, real-time online reporting of all contributions to any candidate or organization engaging in campaigning for or against candidates, legislation or regulatory activity. While disclosure can suppress paid speech, there is a stronger and offsetting public interest in knowing about real or perceivable conflicts of interest involving public money or the public trust.

∎ Remove all political spending and contribution limits. Attempts to limit private political spending have failed and the First Amendment protects the right of wealthy and well-organized people to speak using as much money as they wish.

(Jim Rubens is a businessman from Hanover and a 2014 Republican candidate for U.S. Senate.)

To Represent.Us followers

I have been pushing the MAYDAY.US agenda, which seeks to elect a reform minded Congress in 2016.

There are many "get the money out" activists who are pushing other things, which seek the same ultimate objective as MAYDAY. These include, at the Federal level, seeking amendment of the Constitution and/or Congressional passage of reform legislation, and, at the state and local level, pursuing complementary anti-corruption reform measures. Represent.Us is a leader organization at the state and local level.

With the commencement of the 2016 election cycle, I wish to advocate to Represent.Us followers that they be informed about MAYDAY's agenda and what MAYDAY supporters are doing to advance that agenda. This is with the idea that Represent.Us activists may be persuaded to undertake efforts on behalf of MAYDAY, in addition to their state and local activities.

MAYDAY's objective of electing a reform minded Congress in 2016 is so ambitious that it might be viewed as a fantasy. Any Move To Amend supporter needs to decide about that for him or herself, in making a decision about whether to spend any time and effort on behalf of MAYDAY.

If you don't reject out of hand the potentiality of MAYDAY's plan, I urge you, in addition to looking at the MAYDAY.US website, the MAYDAY Facebook Page, and the MAYDAYPAC Facebook Group page, to take a look at this MAYDAY Supporters Blog I created. In the blog, I am trying to throw out ideas and suggestion for what MAYDAY supporters might do in order to advance the MAYDAY plan.

Please note particularly my advocacy of similar minded organizations, and their supporters, endeavoring to work together and be mutually supportive. I have particularly initiated with the staff of Represent.Us my helping with its small business initiative, as described at Team up with Represent.Us re: small business.

I also ran for Congress in the Alabama 6th Congressional district this year. My campaign was essentially a single issue campaign for reducing the influence of money in politics. I think I developed some good stuff in my campaign, and I urge you take a look at my campaign blog Be An Alabama Rootstriker* with Rob Shattuck.

If you have any questions or want to discuss my ideas and suggestions for trying to advance MAYDAY's objective, please contact me. (Email rdshattuck@gmail.com).

Thank you.

To Move To Amend supporters

I have been pushing the MAYDAY.US agenda, which seeks to elect a reform minded Congress in 2016.

There are many "get the money out" activists who are pushing other things, which seek the same ultimate objective as MAYDAY. These include, at the Federal level, seeking amendment of the Constitution and/or Congressional passage of reform legislation, and, at the state and local level, pursuing complementary anti-corruption reform measures. Move To Amend is a leader organization on the constitutional amendment front.

With the commencement of the 2016 election cycle, I wish to advocate to Move To Amend supporters that they be informed about MAYDAY's agenda and what MAYDAY supporters are doing to advance that agenda. This is with the idea that Move To Amend supporters may be persuaded to undertake efforts on behalf of MAYDAY, in addition to their constitutional amendment efforts.

MAYDAY's objective of electing a reform minded Congress in 2016 is so ambitious that it might be viewed as a fantasy. Any Move To Amend supporter needs to decide about that for him or herself, in making a decision about whether to spend any time and effort on behalf of MAYDAY.

If you don't reject out of hand the potentiality of MAYDAY's plan, I urge you, in addition to looking at the MAYDAY.US website, the MAYDAY Facebook Page, and the MAYDAYPAC Facebook Group page, to take a look at this MAYDAY Supporters Blog I created. In the blog, I am trying to throw out ideas and suggestion for what MAYDAY supporters might do in order to advance the MAYDAY plan. Please note particularly my advocacy of similar minded organizations, and their supporters, endeavoring to work together and be mutually supportive.

I also ran for Congress in the Alabama 6th Congressional district this year. My campaign was essentially a single issue campaign for reducing the influence of money in politics. I think I developed some good stuff in my campaign, and I urge you take a look at my campaign blog Be An Alabama Rootstriker* with Rob Shattuck.

If you have any questions or want to discuss my ideas and suggestions for trying to advance MAYDAY's objective, please contact me. (Email rdshattuck@gmail.com).

Thank you.

To other "get the money out" activists

I have been pushing the MAYDAY.US agenda, which seeks to elect a reform minded Congress in 2016.

There are many "get the money out" activists who are pushing other things, which seek the same ultimate objective as MAYDAY. These include, at the Federal level, seeking amendment of the Constitution and/or Congressional passage of reform legislation, and, at the state and local level, pursuing complementary anti-corruption reform measures.

With the commencement of the 2016 election cycle, I wish to advocate to other "get the money out" activists that they be informed about MAYDAY's agenda and what MAYDAY supporters are doing to advance that agenda. This is with the idea that other "get the money out" activists may be persuaded to undertake efforts on behalf of MAYDAY, in addition other efforts they are making.

MAYDAY's objective of electing a reform minded Congress in 2016 is so ambitious that it might be viewed as a fantasy. Any "get the money out" activist needs to decide about that for him or herself, in making a decision about whether to spend any time and effort on behalf of MAYDAY.

If you don't reject out of hand the potentiality of MAYDAY's plan, I urge you, in addition to looking at the MAYDAY.US website, the MAYDAY Facebook Page, and the MAYDAYPAC Facebook Group page, to take a look at this MAYDAY Supporters Blog I created. In the blog, I am trying to throw out ideas and suggestion for what MAYDAY supporters might do in order to advance the MAYDAY plan. Please note particularly my advocacy of similar minded organizations, and their supporters, endeavoring to work together and be mutually supportive.

I also ran for Congress in the Alabama 6th Congressional district this year. My campaign was essentially a single issue campaign for reducing the influence of money in politics. I think I developed a lot of good stuff in my campaign, and I urge you take a look at my campaign blog Be An Alabama Rootstriker* with Rob Shattuck.

If you have any questions or want to discuss my ideas and suggestions for trying to advance MAYDAY's objective, please contact me. (Email rdshattuck@gmail.com).

Thank you.

Banging on House Oversight & Gov't Reform Comm.

My Alabama 6th Congressional district Representative-elect Palmer requested and received assignment to the House Oversight and Government Reform Committee.

That prompted me to write these two entries: Projecting Palmer: Oversight and Government Reform and Unworthy OGR oversight of health insurers' bailout.

Next I composed this tweet message

Please read "Unworthy OGR oversight of health insurers' bailout." Thank you. http://al6thcongdist-ihaveuntiljan13.blogspot.com/2014/12/oversight-of-health-insurers-bailout.html

and sent the message to the following Representatives whose twitter names I found at https://twitter.com/GOPoversight/with_replies:

@Jim_Jordan @RepMarkMeadows @DarrellIssa @jasoninthehouse @RepDeSantis @SpeakerBoehner @RepDianeBlack @RepWalberg @TGowdySC @farenthold

What do you think about this as a step in the MAYDAY campaign for 2016?

Question for MAYDAY.US and NoLabels.org

This MAYDAY activist would like some guidance relative to the differing agendas of MAYDAY.US and NoLabels.org. This is particularly motivated by a commonality of certain prime movers in those organizations.

The front page of MAYDAY.US states as its goal to "reduce the influence of money in politics by electing a Congress committed to fundamental reform by 2016."

The No Labels website says:

No Labels has a unique view on the root causes of dysfunction in our government and the required solutions.
Breaking gridlock is a preoccupation and priority of many reform organizations in D.C. and around the country. Often, these organizations are focused on bold systemic reform ideas to reduce the influence of hyperpartisanship, like getting money out of politics or putting an end to congressional gerrymandering.
These are certainly worthy and important endeavors — but they are tough, multi-year, state-by-state slogs. These ideas may never come to fruition – or only come in time. But America can’t afford to wait for the prospect of uncertain reform at some uncertain point in the future.
We need solutions to our most pressing problems now, and we need buy-in from both Democrats and Republicans to find them.

No Labels has embarked on the below specific plan, which targets the 2016 Presidential election.

No Labels is calling for America’s leaders to support a new governing process to build a National Strategic Agenda centered on four goals. These goals – chosen with input from a nationwide survey that No Labels conducted in the fall of 2013 – are:
• Create 25 million new jobs over the next 10 years;
• Balance the federal budget by 2030;
• Secure Medicare and Social Security for another 75 years; and
• Make America energy secure by 2024.
America urgently needs a National Strategic Agenda, and our leaders know it as evidenced by the fact that over 80 members of Congress have endorsed the process to create it.
When you look at Washington today, it’s hard to escape the conclusion that it is defined by all tactics, and no strategy.
Everything is about winning the next news cycle or the next election. What about winning the future for the country?
There needs to be a new paradigm for decision-making in our government. One that begins with agreement on big goals and progresses to agreement on key facts and the principles and policies that will be part of the solution.
That’s what the National Strategic Agenda is all about.
The National Strategic Agenda will be created with input from members of Congress, state and local leaders and regular citizens at No Labels sponsored Ideas meetings in Washington, DC, New Hampshire, Iowa and elsewhere. These meetings will enable No Labels to take the pulse of people nationwide and to ultimately forge agreement on a full policy plan to achieve the goals of the National Strategic Agenda.
No Labels is partnering with the global consulting firm Deloitte to help develop the agenda. Using the principles agreed to at the Ideas meetings, Deloitte will inform the creation of comprehensive policy and legislative solutions to the four goals in the National Strategic Agenda.
The completed National Strategic Agenda will be unveiled in New Hampshire and Iowa on October 5, 2015 just as the presidential election campaign season is ramping up.
No Labels will work to inject the agenda into the presidential debate by activating its network of citizens, members of Congress, and state and local leaders across America. No Labels’ ultimate goal is for the next president to call for a National Strategic Agenda, to work with Congress to implement it and to use No Labels’ agenda as the framework.

These are very ambitious agendas that MAYDAY and No Labels have. Their ultimate goal is largely a common one, to wit, to fix "dysfunctional" government. Their paths to trying to achieve that goal are different. Both paths (agendas) call for enormous efforts at both leadership and grassroots levels. The agendas are not working against each other, but they will involve different focus, and efforts prosecuting one agenda are not available for prosecuting the other agenda.

So, where does a grassroots "activist" such as myself decide to dedicate his efforts?

My efforts have been on behalf of the MAYDAY agenda.

I am interested in hearing comments by the leaderships of MAYDAY and No Labels about my choice.

I am particularly interested because Mark McKinnon was a co-founder of No Labels, and he recently joined with Lawrence Lessig to form MAYDAY. They are in a good position to discuss my question, and Mark McKinnon would seem to be an advocate of both agendas.

Other activists, either for MAYDAY or No Labels, may be interested in what the answer to my question is.

Team up with Represent.Us cont'd

In my November 26th posting Team up with Represent.Us re: small business, I described joining in to help Represent.Us with an initiative it has to obtain endorsements by small business owners of the provisions of the American Anti-Corruption Act. To get started, I sent to the Birmingham Business Alliance (Birmingham's Chamber of Commerce) the email posted at Small business owners and money in politics. I said that I would likely contact more chambers of commerce locally, and that I would then consider contacting small business owners directly.

Today I starting contacting more chambers of commerce (see Other chambers of commerce). I also started tweeting to followers of @BHMBizAlliance who appeared to be small business owners or significantly employed by small business. My tweets gave a link to Small business owners and money in politics. You may find my tweets under Tweets & replies in my twitter account. My blog page view counter shows 19 page views today of the linked page.

This is not great shakes what I have done today. I bother making this entry because I see so little going on by MAYDAY supporters to publicize MAYDAY to voters and others at the grassroots level, and I would like to spur more grassroots action by MAYDAY supporters.

Maybe it is hopeless to try to do that, and maybe there will never be much grassroots activity by MAYDAY supporters.

Time will tell.

UPDATE

12/14 My tweeting yesterday appears to have resulted in my letter to the Birmingham Business Alliance being picked up and posted by Small Business News at http://paper.li/AdamGoldstien/1336546104#!politics

#SmallBusiness News is out! http://t.co/IUmJ2T66Tn Stories via @RobShattuckAL06
— Adam Goldstien (@AdamGoldstien) December 14, 2014

Letter to AL06 Democratic candidate

Continuing on my steps to advance MAYDAY, I have sent this letter to Professor Mark Lester at Birmingham-Southern College, who was the Democratic candidate in the Alabama 6th Congressional district in the 2014 elections: Another letter to Mark Lester.

MY next step to advance MAYDAY

In yesterday's entry MAYDAY's next step, I discussed "crossing" state and Congressional district lines and my particular situation in the Alabama 6th Congressional district and Democratic Representative Terri Sewell in the adjacent Alabama 7th Congressional district.

Relative to that discussion, I have sent this communication to Representative Sewell: Dear Representative Sewell.

MAYDAY's next step

After the 2014 election returns, MAYDAY did an analysis and interpreted the elections as showing there was great difficulty of voters voting against their party in partisan, contested situations, and said that MAYDAY would shift its focus to getting involved in "safe seat" elections or in primary elections.

Yesterday MAYDAY pronounced "That we can’t wait for the next election. We must continue this work now." MAYDAY elaborated:

So over the next year, that’s what we’re going to do. Our team is already spec-ing out a platform that will make it possible for our most important resource — you — to help us recruit members of Congress to support reform. That’s not a platform to ask for money. And it won’t demand much of the voters’ time. But it will enable us to recruit voters in targeted districts to make a simple ask of their incumbent representatives: Will you co-sponsor fundamental reform? And then to create the campaign to get them to yes.

How do we get Representatives in the new Congress to co-sponsor fundamental reform?

Here are suggestions:


A. Money in politics has drastically impaired Congress

It seems to me it is the impairment of Congress that is the critical matter, and not just the existence of the corruption. Accordingly, we want to start by making the case that money in politics has drastically impaired Congress.

The case that money in politics has impaired Congress has been set out at length and in various forms by Lessig and others.

Its basic elements include the high cost of elections, the dependence of the politicians on a small number of funders, the bending of the politicians to the wishes of the funders, the huge amount of time  politicians have to spend fundraising, the detrimental impact of that distraction on the politicians properly doing their legislative jobs for their constituents as a whole, and the undue intrusion of myriads of one sided special interests to the detriment of good laws overall being passed for the country.

A main object should be how the case can be most emphatically made to voters and to the Representatives in the new Congress to the effect that money in politics has drastically impaired Congress.

The elements described above obviously need to be articulated in a simple and understandable way. You might want to consider how well I have done that at this link: Birmingham's Future For Young Professionals.

I would like to suggest some things that may give added oomph


B. Who knows best, but who doesn't want to talk about it?

I think there is a great pressure point here of "who knows best" and "who doesn't want to talk about it".

It is those in Congress who know best "how Washington works" and the nature and cause of impairment of Congress by money in politics, and the longer they have been there, the better they know.

It is also the case they don't want to talk about it, because they benefit from it and don't want it changed.

The combination of their knowing best, and not wanting to talk about it, can be, I believe, very effectively used.

In the AL 6th Congressional district, I have been pressing on this as hard as I can. For an indication of what I have done and how I have done it, see Just answer the question, Gary Palmer and the links set out there.

After you review the same, ask yourself, "Is your Representative willing to discuss the matter. If not, is this combination of those in Congress knowing best, and their refusing to talk about it (to their constituents whom they are supposed to serve) an effective way of applying pressure to get your Representatives to face up to the problem?"


C. Reaching across district and state lines

If your incumbent Representative is unwilling to address the issue (or downplays its importance), consider ways to take the matter to an incumbent Representative in a nearby Congressional district who may be willing to say things which your Representative is unwilling to say, and you take what that Representative says back to your Representative.

In my Alabama 6th Congressional district, Representative-elect Gary Palmer has stone walled for ten months on this issue.

Against this, there is Democratic Representative Terri Sewell in the adjacent Alabama 7th Congressional district. In the course of my campaign, I posted this online letter to her:  Dear Representative Sewell.

In the letter I asked whether Representative Sewell thought something was fundamentally wrong with Congress, and, if so, whether it was something which critically needed addressing by the American people and Congress.

Representative Sewell has not replied to me. There are ways, however, to follow up.

Earlier in the year, Representative was a co-sponsor of the Government By The People Act. This should be a basis for seeking for her to explain her perception of the country's need for the Act, how great the need is (does she think Congress is "broke"), what factors have caused the need, whether concern about the need is only a partisan issue or whether there should be bi-partisan concern, whether there are alternatives to the Act which the American people could consider for addressing the need, etc.

A decision point arises here on the matter of partisan versus bi-partisan (or nonpartisan). If you allow this as a partisan matter, consider whether you will be able to make any headway with Representatives of the political party on the other side..

Consider the vote in the Senate in September to try to move forward a consititutional amendment to overturn the Citizens United case and that partisan vote. See The Senate Tried to Overturn ‘Citizens United’ Today. Guess What Stopped Them?

Consider if Representative Sewell says, "Look, we Democrats are overwhelmlingly sponsors of the Government By The People Act, and we are overwhelmingly in favor of a constitutional amendment to overturn Citizens United, and the country's problem is because of the obstructionism of the Republicans."

If I take that back to Rep.-elect Palmer, and assuming he gives any response, his response will likely be dismissive that the Democrats want to limit freedom of speech, and that he opposes limiting freedom of speech.

I think I need from Rep. Sewell more than partisanship. I need from her acknowledgment that Congress is impaired, her diagnosis of the impairment, and what needs to be done, including acknowledging that Republicans and Democrats who agree there is a problem may have differing ideas about what to do about it, and Rep. Sewell is willing to discuss all of the same.

I will report how I am able to do as I go forward here.

D. Special one-sided interests; the business community: American Lawmaker's Creed; open Congressional offices

In addition to your reading the Birmingham's Future For Young Professionals.link, please read  BhamBizJournal: "Congressional Inaction Could Derail Recovery" for further consideration of (i) my analysis of special "one-sided" interests, (ii) appealing to the business community, (iii) the ideal of how a lawmaker should act legislatively,  and (iv) an idea of using data capture technology for having transparency of Congressional offices, as may provide assurance that Representatives are properly serving their constituents.

I think the foregoing items have good use in my campaign in the AL 6th Congressional district for fundamental reform. I hope you will find value in these items too.

Prof. Lessig says

Professor Lessig spoke today, and he said the most important thing he has learned from emails he has read from supporters is: "That we can’t wait for the next election. We must continue this work now."

His email elaborates:

So over the next year, that’s what we’re going to do. Our team is already spec-ing out a platform that will make it possible for our most important resource — you — to help us recruit members of Congress to support reform. That’s not a platform to ask for money. And it won’t demand much of the voters’ time. But it will enable us to recruit voters in targeted districts to make a simple ask of their incumbent representatives: Will you co-sponsor fundamental reform? And then to create the campaign to get them to yes.

My Alabama 6th Congressional district is a tough district to target, and Representative-elect Palmer is impossible to pry a word out of about reform. See Can Rep.-elect Palmer say anything?

I will keep hammering.

Let's work on voters across state lines. Tell me what you are doing in your Congressional district. I think we can be more effective if we talk to one another and work together.

Melding with IndependentVoting.org

[There is a growing independent voter movement. Currently, its chief organ is IndependentVoting.org. I think it provides an opportunity for melding. Please consider the below emails.]


From: Rob Shattuck <rdshattuck@gmail.com>
Date: Sun, Dec 7, 2014 at 9:16 AM
Subject: Fwd: AL 6th Congressional district-- Independent status
To: Gwen Mandell <gmandell@cuip.org>
Cc: Lee Woodsmall <wlwoodsmall@gmail.com>, Matt Vaughan <matt@unitedrepublic.org>, "Rick Staggenborg,MD" <staggenborg4senate@hotmail.com>, Jim Rubens <jimrubens@gmail.com>
Dear Gwen,
I am following up on the email I sent you on November 10th.
I would like to throw out some thoughts for IndependentVoting.org in 2015.
As your website shows, Independents are much aggrieved by their exclusion from the electoral process.
The website says Independents are 40% of the electorate.
That is a lot of exclusion, and a basis for a lot of grievance.
How much of that aggrievement is IndependentVoting capturing?
I think the sense of exclusion from the electoral process, and the sense of non-responsiveness of the political system to the voters, has become massive in the United States.
I think this is manifested in a proliferation of organizations, which are trying to take a stand about this.
IndependentVoting is rightfully angry about the extent to which the Republican and Democratic parties exercise their power to retard Independents in having a say.
These other organizations similarly have great complaint about how the American people are being ill-served by a broken system.
A number of the organizations have identified the role of money in politics as the main source of the problem.
I think IndependentVoting should similarly consider the role of money in politics as a source of the power of the Republican and Democratic parties to retard Independents in having a say.
The independent voter movement has a history, which Jacqueline Salit recounts in Independents Rising going back to Ross Perot in 1992. The other organizations I am referring to are of a more recent vintage and may need to appreciate that change takes longer to accomplish than they are targeting.
I think these other organizations are reflecting a powerful surge in voter sentiment that the political system is broken and needs fixing, some way, somehow.
If there is this powerful surge in voter sentiment, I think IndependentVoting would want to be in on it.
My idea in the AL 6th Congressional district is to travel as an Independent, who is waving the MAYDAY.US banner.
I would like to find others in the independent voting movement who have similar perceptions as mine, and who are looking for a melding of the aggrievement that Independents have from being excluded, with a powerful surging of voter sentiment that the political system is broken and needs fixing, and with the role of money as prime culprit, which urgently needs addressing by the American people.
I propose to IndependentVoting that it consider putting discussion on its website about the things I am saying here.
For your information, the persons copied on this email are my contact at MAYDAY.US, a contact I have at Represent.Us, an acquaintance of mine in Oregon who works on behalf of the Amend movement, and Jim Rubens, one of MAYDAY's 2014 candidates.
I am posting various email communications on The MAYDAY Supporters Blog in order to promote mutual awareness among organizations, and I will post this email on the blog.
Thank you for your attention to this email, Gwen, and I hope it provides some worthwhile food for thought for IndependentVoting.
Sincerely,
Rob Shattuck


---------- Forwarded message ----------
From: Rob Shattuck <rdshattuck@gmail.com>
Date: Mon, Nov 10, 2014 at 4:43 PM
Subject: AL 6th Congressional district-- Independent status
To: "Gwen Mandell, Independen." <gmandell@independentvoting.org>
Dear Gwen,
In my campaign in the AL 6th Congressional district this year, I pounded for eight months on whether there is something fundamentally wrong with Congress.
I could not get any candidate or anyone in the Alabama legislative delegation in Washington or any in the local media or any local political commentator to discuss whether there is something fundamentally wrong with Congress, or not.
With null discussion about that, there could not be and there was not any discussion, if something was fundamentally wrong, what could be done about it.
This is fulsomely documented in my campaign website.Be An Alabama Rootstriker* with Rob Shattuck, and ready access to relevant links can be found at From the AL 6th Cong'l district: I am not crushed.
I think I now consider myself officially an Independent, and, if I try again in 2016, I am pretty sure it would be as an Independent.
Sincerely,
Rob Shattuck

2014 MAYDAY candidate Jim Rubens

Jim Rubens was supported by MAYDAY in the Republican primary election in New Hampshire for the United States Senate (running against, among others, Scott Brown). I am endeavoring to reach out to Jim for what he might contribute in MAYDAY's effort for the 2016 elections. Below is an email interchange I have had with Jim.

From: Rob Shattuck <rdshattuck@gmail.com>
Date: Fri, Dec 5, 2014 at 3:46 PM
Subject: Re: Let's talk
To: Jim Rubens <jim@jimrubens.com>
Cc: "Rick Staggenborg,MD" <staggenborg4senate@hotmail.com>, Lee Woodsmall<wlwoodsmall@gmail.com>, Matt Vaughan <matt@unitedrepublic.org>
Thanks very much for emailing, Jim. I will call you in due course.
Let me, if I may, lay out briefly where I am coming from.
I am a novice and an amateur at this. You have significant political experience.
Lessig started off MAYDAY by calling it a "moonshot."
There is a good chance it is and will remain "pie in the sky" and will never happen.
Nonetheless, I don't see Lessig giving up, and I consider myself all in with MAYDAY. See From the AL 6th Cong'l district: I am not crushed.
I don't know what plan the MAYDAY leadership team will devise for MAYDAY and the 2016 elections.
I am trying hard to stir grassroots publicizing of MAYDAY, and I am even trying to find would be Congressional candidates elsewhere in the country. See Finding would be Congressional candidates for 2016.
Frankly, I don't know whether my efforts are futile flailing (and possibly even counterproductive), and I should call a halt to them as a waste of time.
Until I get a better read from other MAYDAY activists about what I am doing, I will continue my efforts.
Any comments you have about how MAYDAY supporters can best contribute to help advance MAYDAY's goal would be very appreciated by myself.
Recently, I reached out to Represent.Us, and also to an acquaintance in Oregon who does work on the "amend" front. I am copying this email to those contacts, as well as to Lee Woodsmall, who is my contact at MAYDAY. I don't know whether "loop" building helps anything, but that is what I am trying to do.
Further to creating shared awareness, I am recording my efforts and communications in The MAYDAY Supporters Blog. Your name already appears in the blog, and I will add this email to the blog. If you prefer mention of you in the blog be changed or eliminated, let me know, and I will endeavor to accommodate your wishes.
I hope this doesn't come off too amateurish in your eyes (or, worse, ineffective). I am endeavoring the best I can in the circumstances.
I am sure we will converse by telephone in due course.
Sincerely,
Rob

From: Jim Rubens <jim@jimrubens.com>
Date: Fri, Dec 5, 2014 at 10:58 PM
Subject: Re: Let's talk
To: Rob Shattuck <rdshattuck@gmail.com>
Cc: Matt Vaughan <matt@unitedrepublic.org>, "Rick Staggenborg,MD" <staggenborg4senate@hotmail.com>, Lee Woodsmall <wlwoodsmall@gmail.com>
Rob
Anyone dedicated to the noble cause of ending corruption is a patriot... no apologies needed.
MayDay PAC 2014 was an acknowledged experiment from which we learn. No experiment, no learning and no progress.
In my run in the GOP primary for US Senate, I made political money corruption and careerism major issues which resonated intensely with voters across the spectrum. I lost to Scott Brown for two reasons. First I was outspent about 10 to 1 and second the anti establishment vote was split approximately in half between two anti establishment candidates me being one. Had I run head to head I likely would have won and MayDay's doubters no doubt would have been silent.
Call when you can.
Regards,
Jim Rubens
(603) 359-3300

From: Rob Shattuck <rdshattuck@gmail.com>
Date: Sat, Dec 6, 2014 at 8:07 AM
Subject: Re: Let's talk
To: Jim Rubens <jim@jimrubens.com>
Cc: Matt Vaughan <matt@unitedrepublic.org>, "Rick Staggenborg,MD" <staggenborg4senate@hotmail.com>, Lee Woodsmall <wlwoodsmall@gmail.com>
Thanks for the quick reply, Jim.
I know the 2016 election cycle has only just begun, and MAYDAY's plan, strategy and tactics will evolve.
Right now, if you judge by the MAYDAY.US Facebook Page and the MAYDAY Facebook Group Page, you will see that they are largely confining themselves to discussion among themselves, and they are not promoting that MAYDAY supporters go out and find ways to publicize MAYDAY to the public and they are not promoting trying to find Congressional candidates or would be candidates for 2016.
I have been urging promotion of supporters interfacing with the public and trying to find candidates or would be candidates, but this has been declined thus far. I thus took it upon myself to try to do the promoting by means of The MAYDAY Supporters Blog and tweeting directly to MAYDAY supporters.
Hopefully these discrepancies will get ironed out in due course.
If you wish to weigh in on these matters, please do so.
Until we talk, thanks for your interest in this thus far.
Sincerely,
Rob

.

Finding would be Congressional candidates for 2016

Pending the MAYDAY leadership team making further pronouncement about its plan of action for 2016 (incorporating what has been learned from the 2014 elections), I am continuing to try to establish myself as a 2016 Congressional candidate in the AL 6th Congressional district.

In doing that, I have an interest in finding and communicating with other would be Congressional candidates for 2016, who have an interest (and the time and commitment) to take up the corruption issue themselves in a public way. See What about candidates?.

I think that not only MAYDAY supporters, but also other organizations and their supporters, can be involved in this. I have sent the below email to my acquaintance in Oregon, who is active on the "amend the Constitution" front.

I can only hope that MAYDAY supporters will pitch in.

Thank you.

From: Rob Shattuck <rdshattuck@gmail.com>
Date: Thu, Dec 4, 2014 at 5:05 PM
Subject: 2016 Congressional candidates
To: "Rick Staggenborg,MD" <staggenborg4senate@hotmail.com>
Cc: Lee Woodsmall <wlwoodsmall@gmail.com>, Matt Vaughan <matt@unitedrepublic.org>
Dear Rick,
I am endeavoring to establish myself as a 2016 Congressional candidate in the AL 6th Congressional district.
I do not know where the MAYDAY leadership team is in the process of formulating its plan of action for 2016.
Regardless of what that plan turns out to be, I think it can only be beneficial for activists to continue try to publicize as much as possible the corruption issue and also to find and urge would be Congressional candidates who have an interest (and the time and commitment) to take up the issue themselves in a public way. See What about candidates?.
In trying to establish my own candidacy, I am interested in communicating with other would be Congressional candidates or would be candidates for 2016.
If you can give me an leads or referrals of Congressional candidates or potential candidates in Oregon or elsewhere, I would be desirous of following up on the same.
In trying to keep pushing on this wherever it might bear fruit, I am copying Lee and Matt on this email, andI will post this email on The MAYDAY Supporters Blog. If you send me a reply, I will also post your reply unless you instruct me otherwise.
Thanks.
Sincerely,
Rob

Trying for MoveToAmend

I believe organizations such as MoveToAmend, Represent.Us, and MAYDAY.US, which have a common objective, should be collaborative and mutually supportive in promoting that common objective, even as the organizations have differing approaches for how to try to bring about needed change.

In my previous entry, I reported how I have joined in with Represent.Us in their small business owner initiative. See Team up with Represent.Us re: small business.

I have an acquaintance in Oregon who has been very active in advocating for a constitutional amendment to provide that corporations are not persons and money is not speech.

I have had the below email interchange with this acquaintance:

From: Rob Shattuck <rdshattuck@gmail.com>
Date: Sun, Nov 30, 2014 at 10:48 AM
Subject: Fwd: FYI Matt: Team up with Represent.Us re: small business
To: Rick Staggenborg <staggenborg4senate@hotmail.com>
Cc: Lee Woodsmall <wlwoodsmall@gmail.com>, Matt Vaughan <matt@unitedrepublic.org>
Dear Rick,
You and I have discussed several times the past couple of years the matter of trying to get organizations such as MoveToAmend, Represent.Us, and MAYDAY.US, to be more collaborative and mutually supportive in promoting their common goal, even as the organizations have differing approaches for how to try to bring about needed change.
In the past week, I initiated specific action to join with Represent.Us in promoting its initiative to get endorsements from small business owners of the American Anti-Corruption Act.
I consider myself traveling under the MAYDAY banner (because of its focus on getting reform minded Congressional candidates elected).
For information about how I (as MAYDAY oriented) have joined with Represent.Us on its small business initiative, please see the entry Team up with Represent.Us re: small business, which I have posted in The MAYDAY Supporters Blog.
I hope that you, in your role in the Amend movement, will endeavor in 2015 to search for ways to be collaborative with MAYDAY.US and Represent.Us (and other organizations) in promoting your and their common goals, even as there may be differing approaches.
In my mind, the most important thing is publicizing to the public the existence of the fundamental problem in the country's governance, which the country must address in some way if Congress is to be able to do its job properly in dealing with the country's big problems.
Lee Woodsmall and Matt Vaughan, whom I am copying on this email, are my contacts at MAYDAY.US and Represent.Us, respectively.
Please keep me apprised of any steps you take along the lines urged by this email, particularly in case I can do anything to lend support to them.
Sincerely,
Rob

From: Rick Staggenborg <staggenborg4senate@hotmail.com>
Date: Sun, Nov 30, 2014 at 1:35 PM
Subject: RE: FYI Matt: Team up with Represent.Us re: small business
To: Rob Shattuck <rdshattuck@gmail.com>
Cc: Lee Woodsmall <wlwoodsmall@gmail.com>, Matt Vaughan <matt@unitedrepublic.org>
I appreciate your keeping me in the loop, Rob. I have seen encouraging signs of collaboration and new opportunities for cooperation between groups working in different ways to address corruption by special interest money in elections and other aspects of government. I continue to encourage these groups to systematically collaborate to support each others efforts.One hopeful sign was that RepresentUs teamed with one of the groups pushing for an amendment (Public Citizen?) to call for pledges for BOTH the AACA and an amendment. The idea was to pose the question to presidential candidates in 2016 and publicize their responses, making this a campaign issue. That is the same idea behind Move to Amend's Pledge to Amend strategy that is an adaptation of the one that I proposed in 2012.
My only disappointments regarding this effort are that:
1) I only saw one notice. However, I presume that this will be publicized more extensively during the campaign season that has already unofficially begun.
2) More importantly, the strategy was not used (as far as I am aware) during the midterms. I see congressional elections as more central to the strategy if the point is to elect a Congress that will pass the AACA and/or an amendment. In fairness, Move to Amend started very late and put in an inadequate effort to promote their campaign. It seems that the idea of using reform as a campaign issue has been surprisingly slow to penetrate the consciousness of leaders in the movement, but it is happening.
The other very hopeful sign is seeing MayDay put money behind reform candidates. I can only assume that will include both AACA supporters and amendment supporters (and especially candidates who support both).
Keep up the good work, my friend. I will keep working in my own way to promote a unified anti-corruption movement. I encourage Lee and Matt to contact me if they are willing to talk to people working on this independent of the leadership of the many groups who do not seem to be able to talk directly to each other.
Thanks,

Rick Staggenborg, MD
Board President, Take Back America for the People
Founder, Soldiers For Peace International
http://www.soldiersforpeaceinternational.org/2011/01/asymmetrical-warfare.html
Coos Bay, OR 541-217-8044 

I post this information to encourage organizations and their members to be proactive for collaborations and mutual support in publicizing and promoting their common objective.

Team up with Represent.Us re: small business

The Represent.Us organization is conducting an initiative to obtain endorsements by small business owners of  the provisions of the American Anti-Corruption Act. This initiative is set out at Represent.Us small business endorsement.

At the link, Represent.Us says:

The corruption in our political system is causing our elected officials to focus their time and effort to their campaign donors instead of serving their constituents. Represent.Us is building a grassroots movement to end this corruption.
We’re asking small businesses to sign on as endorsers of the campaign. 88% of small-business owners have an unfavorable view of the role money plays in politics, and now they're taking action by publicly endorsing our anti-corruption campaign.
We’re asking small-business owners to endorse the Represent.Us Campaign. Help us collect endorsements by reaching out to small-business owners in your community.

In my Congressional campaign in the AL 6th Congressional district, I tried to call the attention of the business community generally to its concerns about the country's economic recovery being threatened by "fierce political divide" and about Congress being a "primary culprit." See my campaign blog entry  BhamBizJournal: "Congressional Inaction Could Derail Recovery".

As part of that, I sent communications to the Birmingham Business Alliance, the Business Council of Alabama and the U.S. Chamber of Commerce.  These communications particularly submitted  two ideas or concepts which I believed were worthy of consideration by the chambers in order to improve Congressional performance and the governance of the country by Washington DC.

This past week I joined helping Represent.Us with its small business initiative, with my own campaign. I sent to the Birmingham Business Alliance the email posted at Small business owners and money in politics. I will likely send similar emails in due course to more chambers of commerce locally. Depending on the reactions I get from chambers of commerce, I will then consider contacting small business owners directly.

I think MAYDAY supporters should consider this "line of charge" I am employing in the direction of the business community in my area, and whether the Represent.Us initiative offers a means to begin a similar "line of charge" in the direction of the business community in their area to aid their efforts to advance MAYDAY's goal in their locations.

Continued at Team up with Represent.Us cont'd.

How is MAYDAY doing?

Who thinks MAYDAY supporters can do anything to advance MAYDAY's goals?

What can they do?

Looking at the websites and Twitter, I am unable to see that they are doing much other than a lot of talking back and forth and liking on Facebook.

Maybe MAYDAY supporters can do little or nothing to advance MAYDAY's goals, and the exhortations I am trying to make are pointless.

If so, please tell me, and maybe I will agree that I am wasting my time and stop what I am doing.

Let me review a little data for your consideration.

By sending out hundreds or thousands of tweets, I have been able to generate 820 pages views of Just answer the question, Gary Palmer.

By sending out a couple hundred tweets to @MAYDAYUS followers in the past two weeks, I was able to generate 235 pages views of  From the AL 6th Cong'l district: I am not crushed,  and 80 page views of  Roy Cho candidacy: Root problem vs. multiple issues.

The foregoing page views generated maybe 40 retweets, favorites, and Twitter following from those MAYDAY supporters who received the tweets

Was it worth it to send individual tweets to @MAYDAYUS followers?

The past couple of days I decided it's not worth it to send individual tweets to MAYDAY followers, and instead I would send one tweet to @MAYDAYUS using hashtags #maydayus and #maydaypac.

Sunday I tweeted to @MAYDAYUS  a link to Where's our massive public mobilization?, and yesterday I tweeted a link to What about candidates?. Those have each received 10 page views.

Plain and simple, if massive public mobilization is needed for MAYDAY, the interest among MAYDAY supporters for doing things to achieve that seems massively lacking to me.

What about candidates?

The MAYDAY leadership team is presumably deep in consideration about its original plan and strategy and about what MAYDAY will do on the candidate front for the 2016 elections.

The "candidate front" has possible choices of MAYDAY very passively identifying candidates MAYDAY thinks should be supported, or, alternatively, MAYDAY publicizing MAYDAY and its goals in ways that induce candidates or potential candidates to take up the MAYDAY cause or take it up more vociferously.

In terms of its plan and tactics on the candidate front, MAYDAY has the "coordination" limitation to accommodate to.

MAYDAY supporters of course will be very interested in what the MAYDAY leadership team decides for MAYDAY's plan and tactics on the candidate front.

Whatever the leadership team decides for MAYDAY, it would not seem harmful for MAYDAY supporters to be active on the candidate front in their own ways, and it would seem that it could only be beneficial.

MAYDAY supporters, in their individual capacities, would seem to be less constrained by, and may be completely free of, the "coordination" rule. This could be a material advantage for MAYDAY supporters to help advance MAYDAY's goals.

I have advocated that MAYDAY supporters be aggressive in interfacing and interacting with candidates and potential candidates. I continue to advocate that at this start of the 2016 cycle.

Last week I tweeted to MAYDAY's 2014 candidates and to other 2014 candidates who were followers of MAYDAY or who had expressed notable support for CFR. My tweet gave a link to Roy Cho candidacy: Root problem vs. multiple issues and solicited comments the candidates might have.

I hope much interaction with and among candidates develops as the 2016 election cycle proceeds. I hope other MAYDAY supporters will participate in and abet this.

Where's our massive public mobilization?

One Jamie Lovegrove has a November 6, 2014 posting that MAYDAY.US linked on its Facebook Page (which posting can be found here and which is copied and pasted below).

In the posting, Mr. Lovegrove says, "Incredibly, it seems Lessig is one of the first to recognize that for this kind of unlikely effort to stand even the most remote chance, it will require massive public mobilization."

What can MAYDAY supporters do to help with massive public mobilization?

I have been pushing numerous ideas in this blog to try to contribute to massive public mobilization. I wish I could get more response from MAYDAY supporters.

UPDATE 11/27/15: We must mobilize now to get candidates who are running for Congress in the 2016 elections to #DeclareForDemocracy. Please go to 2016 Congressional candidates Declaration.

Jamie Lovegrove on November 6

Harvard law professor Larry Lessig’s campaign finance reform super PAC failed comprehensively on election night, but attracting public and media attention to the cause is still its only hope. (Photo: Joi Ito/Flickr CC

Mayday, Mayday:

How Not to Reflect on Campaign Finance Reform’s Disastrous 2014 Election Night

Politico’s Ken Vogel and Byron Tau have the definitive, scathing breakdownof the calamitous 2014 election day for Mayday PAC, a super PAC that is trying to spend big money to get money out of politics. In its first election cycle, Mayday failed comprehensively in its foremost goal of electing reform-minded candidates. Vogel and Tau are rightfully ruthless — spending $10 million on several ambitious races and losing all of them is an unequivocal disaster.

Over the next few days, Mayday will inevitably release some polling data to show that the message is beginning to get across to the public even though the candidates aren’t winning. But at the end of the day, that just proves what we all already knew: a lot of Americans oppose the undue influence of money in politics, they’re just not willing to do much about it.

With that being said, some courageously anonymous sources in the piece incredulously suggest that Mayday co-founder and Harvard law professor Larry Lessig’s grand attempt to make campaign finance a mainstream political issue is actually hurting the cause. According to Vogel and Tau, the buzz that Lessig and his PR strategists generated “prompted grumbles from ostensible allies who were irked by Mayday’s headline-grabbing and wondered whether all the attention was helpful to the cause.”

So let’s be perfectly clear about this: The notion that quiet, behind-the-scenes politicking can someday lead to comprehensive campaign finance reform is patently absurd. We’re talking about reversing the effects of the most significant and well-known Supreme Court decision since Bush v. Gore, drastically shrinking a multi-billion dollar industry overnight, and wrenching power away from some of the most power-hungry people in the entire world. This is not some pet political pork that you can tactically maneuver onto the end of some long, unrelated bill and hope nobody notices. This kind of sweeping, controversial change simply does not happen behind the closed doors of the Capitol building cloakrooms or K Street boardrooms.

Incredibly, it seems Lessig is one of the first to recognize that for this kind of unlikely effort to stand even the most remote chance, it will require massive public mobilization. Although he offers a new strategy, he has repeatedly praised and supported those who have spent decades of arduous work fighting for this cause. But the fact of the matter is that they have little to show for it — indeed, despite their respectable efforts, the scope of the problem has gotten dramatically worse under their watch.

There’s nothing novel about Lessig’s assertion that the more entrenched money-in-politics becomes, the harder it will be to get it out. It’s intuitive, it’s happening right in front of our eyes, and it’s supported by all the data and political science research. He’s vigorously studied the history and laws of campaign finance and made the frankly obvious observation that the prospects for reform are now-or-never. And while the likelihood of never seems increasingly likely each day, his only options are to either resign himself to that fate or go all-in on the now.

By jumping into this cycle, Mayday took a huge risk. Failure could not only further discourage potential supporters of reform but also prove that money indeed cannot win elections. Some astute opponents of campaign finance reform ingeniously point out that, as always, several candidates that were heavily outspent in this cycle still ended up winning. That’s completely irrelevant in several ways. First, it’s cherry-picking a handful of outliers to obfuscate a much broader trend. Second, while big money has an increasingly profound impact on electoral politics, nobody is suggesting that it is the absolute be-all and end-all of winning.

But more importantly, the issue is actually not whether big money is the key to winning elections, it’s whether politicians think that big money is the key to winning elections. If they do, the odds are much higher that they’ll be happily willing to compromise their values and their broader constituent preferences if it will open up a few fat wallets. And if politicians did not believe that massive cash reserves are essential for staying in office, they probably wouldn’t spend a whopping 30–70% of their valuable time fundraising from big donors.

But when overall campaign spending is in the billions and individual senate races are funded by over $100 million, spending just $10 million across several different races was always going to struggle to compete against the big guns. Karl Rove’s American Crossroads PAC and Koch groups combined to spend $24 million in a single North Carolina senate race alone.

In that sense, Mayday’s naiveté and ultimate failure actually proves Lessig’s point. If you can raise as much money as Mayday did from a combination of crowd-funding and bigger donations and still not make any significant dent in these races, you can only begin to imagine how completely inconsequential small donors have become. Politicians need not so much as blink at just a few million dollars when the real prizes are even larger.

Ironically, Lessig can now look to Rove of all people for inspiration. The 2012 election cycle was infamously humiliating for George W. Bush’s former political architect: American Crossroads PAC spent over $100 million and successfully defeated just two candidates for a return on investment of 1.29 percent. This time around, $26 million of spending from the group led to a96 percent success rate.

Much like every single campaign finance reform effort before it, Mayday has clearly yet to break much ground. But if it is going to stand any chance in the coming years, it will need to continue trying to galvanize voters behind the issue. Lessig was not “siphoning off money that could have [been] spent more effectively by existing groups,” he was raising money that otherwise would likely have never gone towards campaign finance reform at all. Maybe the “ivory tower egghead” doesn’t have a “radio voice,” but he’s brought new energy, supporters and ideas to a campaign that sorely needed them. Instead of trashing Lessig in Politico, his ostensible allies should be thanking their lucky stars he joined the team.

Jamie Lovegrove

The start of the 2016 election cycle

The announced learning from the 2014 elections is the difficulty of voters voting against their party in partisan, contested situations. This is ostensibly causing a shift of MAYDAY focus to getting involved in "safe seat" elections or in primary elections.

How effective MAYDAY is going to be during the next two years is a huge open question, and is one which will not be answered soon. It will probably take the two years to play out before the answer is adequately known.

I think it is obvious that a very significant factor is how much publicity and attention can be gotten in the country for MAYDAY's corruption issue.

Exactly what MAYDAY is going to do in terms of using MAYDAYPAC funds, and raising more MAYDAYPAC funds, to publicize its corruption issue, is in the hands of the MAYDAY leadership team and presumably will be determined in due course by that team.

Regardless of what MAYDAY decides it will do to publicize the corruption issue, and pending any "guidance" it chooses to give to MAYDAY supporters, it would seem obvious that the more MAYDAY supporters can do to publicize the corruption issue, the more it will help the MAYDAY goal.

There is no gainsaying how hard and tedious, and how minuscule the effect can be, in trying to publicize something like the corruption issue, if you are not spending funds to do it and are depending on elbow grease and shoe leather in carrying out the publicizing.

Few people will put in much personal effort to do it.

If no one does it, however, is to give up and throw in the towel.

It helps to look around.

There are other organizations which are working on the corruption issue and are trying to publicize it. Commenters on the MAYDAY websites have mentioned  Every Voice. While MAYDAY is focused on the Federal level, other organizations are focused on or starting at the state and local level. Represent.Us has gotten publicity for its recent success in Tallahassee. WolfPac and MoveToAmend are working on constitutional amendments.

I think all the publicity these other organizations are trying to generate is publicity that is generally desirable publicity for MAYDAY's goal. Perhaps there is some distraction that is not entirely beneficial, but the help of having it out there I think clearly outweighs any disadvantage for MAYDAY's plan.

In other words, I think you should view these other organizations as help and reinforcement for what you try to do publicity wise.

On the MAYDAY plan, while you are waiting for its tactics to unfold, I would say, if you have the gumption, turn yourself into a Congressional candidate right now. That takes a huge commitment and dedication, and a goodly amount of available time.

I am continuing my Be An Alabama Rootstriker campaign. My reward is that I have a little soapbox in the Alabama 6th Congressional district from which to publicize MAYDAY and the corruption issue.

I think my campaign can be used as a model for other campaigns. If you are interested, take a look and decide for yourself.

If you don't want to become your own candidate in your Congressional district, but you would like to put in personal effort on behalf of MAYDAY but are not sure what, there are things you can do to help my campaign about the corruption issue.

In my dreamworld, I like to think what I am doing in the Alabama 6th Congressional district can be leveraged to have effect in the rest of Alabama and also outside of Alabama.

Thank you.

The fate of GOOOH

GOOOH is an acronym for an organization named Get Out Of Our House.

GOOOH described itself as a "nonpartisan plan to evict the career politicians from the U.S. House of Representatives." The full statement of its Mission is set forth below.

I am not sure when GOOOH was formed. I became aware of GOOOH in 2010. My recollection is GOOOH purported to have 75,000 members. It endeavored to have district leaders for all of the 435 Congressional districts. While the below Mission statement refers to the 2012 elections, I believe GOOOH made efforts in the 2010 elections, and possibly earlier elections.

I endeavored to become involved in the GOOOH effort in Alabama, but nothing much happened.

GOOOH did not succeed very well in the 2012 elections. After the 2012 elections, GOOOH posted the below message on its website:

While thousands of groups have been working incredibly hard to effect change, it should be clear to all that nothing has worked, including GOOOH. It is time to create a new plan. If you have thoughts, please send us an email at goooh@goooh.com. We'll begin reaching out to patriots and groups all across America in the next few weeks to see if we can find a way to work together to replace the career politicians with citizen representatives. Be creative. Think out of the box. Send us your ideas.

That message has remained on the website for the past two years, and I am not aware of any update from GOOOH.

GOOOH's message and goal should resonate with MAYDAY and its supporters.

GOOOH's experience should also be instructive to MAYDAY.

GOOOH greatly appealed to me personally, but GOOOH's experience is cautionary about how MAYDAY can achieve its goal, and cautionary about the efforts I am making in my own campaign.

I solicit your comments about what MAYDAY and its supporters can learn from GOOOH's experience.


[Below is GOOOH's Mission statement, copied and pasted from its website.]

Mission

GOOOH stands for 'Get Out of Our House' and is pronounced like the word 'go'. It is a NON-PARTISAN plan to place citizen representatives on the ballot in 2012, ideally in the primary against the incumbent, competing for a seat in the U.S. House of Representatives. The members of each district will have an honest opportunity to replace the career politicians who have taken over OUR House and are destroying our nation.
If you are tired of career politicians, GOOOH is for you. If you believe money has corrupted Washington, GOOOH is for you. If you believe politicians have too much power, GOOOH is for you. If you are weary of the death grip the two parties have on our government, and are ready to return control of our government to the people, then GOOOH is for you.
GOOOH is NOT a political party. It is a system that will allow you and your neighbors to choose, among yourselves, a candidate who will truly represent your district. Members will select a citizen representative to serve their district. How our candidates get on the ballot will be dependent on when we reach our membership goal. Our preference is to compete in the primaries against the incumbent. It is possible candidates may choose to run in some other way; the candidates will make that decision based on the situation in their district. It is important to clearly state that we are not a third party. We have no platform and are a bottom-up organization. We are a process for selecting and funding candidates.
This is an evolving system and your input is requested. The questions are changing based on the feedback of members like you. Participate in the forums. Send us your thoughts. This is YOUR system. We will perfect it with your input.
This is a new system created by an innovative engineer who has developed complex computer systems his entire career that change the way we do things. The founder developed software for a spy satellite system, helped invent the first credit-card-reading gas pump system, and worked at Dell as the company grew to a $55 billion technology giant. This system leverages the internet and social networking to allow "we the people" to select true representatives, not choose between the politicians the two parties offer. If we continue to elect career politicians who represent their party, the special interests that fund them, and themselves, nothing will change. This is a non-partisan process that will enable the change we all seek.
GOOOH will allow you to:
Help select your Representative - while being considered yourself if you like
Hold your Representative accountable
Replace career politicians with true representatives
Take the money out of politics.
Our process allows Americans of every political leaning to participate in the selection of their District's Representative while being considered themselves. Through our Candidate Selection Sessions you and your peers will select the candidate in your district who best represents your district's views. Even if you do not wish to become your district's representative you will want to participate in the process and have a direct say in who is chosen to represent your district. We will fund a single national campaign to promote our candidates (one from each district) who are selected to run against the party politicians. Because we are a process for selecting representatives (not a "party") we expect a socially moderate candidate to be selected in San Francisco and a socially conservative one in Colorado Springs. We expect fiscally conservative candidates to be chosen in just about every district -- but it will be up to the members in each district to decide.
Originally, our founder proposed excluding lawyers, members of political families, and individuals with more than $11.5 million in assets (250 times the median income). They were not to be excluded because they are bad people, but because they are overly represented in government today and, generally speaking, no longer seem to represent the common man. However, based on input from our members, the Question Committee has voted to remove the exclusion of lawyers and the wealthy. It will be up to the participants in each pool to decide whether or not that is of concern. We believe this change is indicative of the continuing evolution of our system.
We hope you will join GOOOH today and help us take our House back from the politicians!
For GOOOH to succeed we need donating members. We encourage each member to donate $100 now and help us get the advertising efforts started. We will choose candidates for 2012 in any district with 250 or more members and a leader. We will continue to build our base of supporters until a month before the filing deadline in each state, at which time we will begin the selection process. Our first candidates will be chosen in Texas, beginning on Nov ember 5th - Texas has the earliest filing deadline in the nation. In most states, candidates will run as a Republican or Democrat, competing in the primary. In some states our candidates could run as an Independent, though they will be advised that the odds will be stacked heavily against them if they do. They could run on some other Party’s ticket, such as the Libertarian Party or the Constitution Party, but again, we will not advise taking that route; Republicans and Democrats win 99.9% of the time. The rules in each state and the willingness of established parties tocooperate will help determine how to access the ballot.