Votes, money, organizing, messaging

Previous entry: Let's start a discussion.

In the end, whether it is this year, or 2016, or after, campaign finance reform is about votes.

It can be votes of a city council passing a resolution recommending overturn of Citizens United, or votes in a Congressional election, or votes of a state legislature to call for a convention of states, or votes in Congress to pass campaign finance reform legislation.

Some votes can depend on other votes, such as a vote in Congress can depend on prior votes which have determined who is in Congress.

A vote in Congress can depend on expectations of how votes will be cast in the next Congressional election.

Campaign finance reformers don't need much instruction on how money can affect votes.

Money buys advertising, including TV, direct mail, phone banks, and door to door canvassing. Money also buys a staff for organizing and making a vote seeking campaign more effective. "Walking around money" can be used to get voters to the polls. Campaign contributions can buy lawmaker votes.

The political voting arena is a gargantuan Tower of Babel, involving numerous important policy issues, thousands of different viewpoints and priorities, and raucous, nonstop barrages of competing commentary and messaging.

What do campaigns to "tweet to defeat" the money monster in politics need in the foregoing environment?

They need lots of tweeters.

They need organizing.

They need unified, effective messaging.

It is better if tweeters don't have a personal problem with "spamming." See Spamming on Twitter.