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.