The Campaign Finance Reformers Blog has heretofore been published using the URL name http://maydaysupporters.blogspot.com/ .
MAYDAY.US has requested that this URL name be changed so that the URL name does not include "mayday." To accommodate MAYDAY's request, I am changing the URL name to http://campaignfinancereformers.blogspot.com/.
Blog postings in The Campaign Finance Reformers Blog will hereafter be made using the URL name http://campaignfinancereformers.blogspot.com/
To avoid broken Internet links, The Campaign Finance Reformers Blog that has heretofore been published using the URL name http://maydaysupporters.blogspot.com/ will be preserved.
Posts hereafter made using the URL name http://campaignfinancereformers.blogspot.com/ may contain links to that which is preserved under the URL name http://maydaysupporters.blogspot.com/ .
Hopefully this transition to the URL name http://campaignfinancereformers.blogspot.com/ will be reasonably seamless, and broken Internet links will be avoided in the transition.
This entry is being posted under both URL names.
To help keep you straight, in the blog title above, I have put "(old)" for the blog under the http://maydaysupporters.blogspot.com/ URL name, and I have put "(new) in for the blog under the http://campaignfinancereformers.blogspot.com/ URL name.
Thursday, May 28, 2015
Tuesday, May 26, 2015
Do you agree with the MAYDAY Team?
In the past week, I tweeted about frustration with MAYDAY's congressional calling campaign, and suggested that an impediment was MAYDAY's unwillingness to confront, decide and state expressly on its website what limitations there are on MAYDAY's efforts by reason of the Federal campaign finance "coordination" rules. (See MAYDAY and the "coordination" rules.)
Two reply tweets I received prompted me to post How do you build a movement? and to tweet links to that.
Today I received the below tweet from the MAYDAY Team saying I was banned for spamming.
Ten days ago I posted Spreading MAYDAY via Twitter, which sought to obtain discussion and views about my tweeting. This was not the first time I tried to put the same up for discussion.
Now that the MAYDAY Team has spoken and said I have been banned for spamming, I wish to resume solicitation of discussion about this matter.
To me it seems that it should be fairly easy for you to make your own evaluation of this.
First, evaluate for yourself how you think the MAYDAY Team and its use of the social media are doing as MAYDAY goes about trying to "rally the most effective, targeted citizen lobbying campaign we can to close the gap on reform," having as a goal to recruit 70 members of Congress to support fundamental reform. In making your evaluation, you might find helpful How is the MAYDAY rally going?
Please note the "Help us recruit more people to help" request in 3. Spread the Word of the "Take Action" webpage on the MAYDAY site, and see what you can find in the MAYDAY social media evidencing recruiting efforts (other than by myself) going on for MAYDAY.
Compare the messaging that MAYDAY team has done with the messaging I have done by means of my tweeting.
My tweeting has attracted a great deal of interest from MAYDAY supporters and supporters of other campaign finance reform organizations. This interest has been manifested by hundreds of retweets, favoritings, follows, etc., and thousands of page views of links to my blog that I have been tweeting. A partial listing of blog entries and numbers of page views is as follows:
If you want to go outside the box 164 page views
Start your district's CFR campaign this weekend 566 page views
You be a Congressional candidate 503 page views
Help MAYDAY's Congressional calling campaign 539 page views
Report on #TweetToDefeatMoney 365 page views
#TweetToDefeatMoney, Tweet Sheet 1 621 page views
MAYDAY's 2015 plan and public mobilization 1863 page views
I tweet to defeat the money monster 1193 page views
To campaign finance reform organizations 819 page views
Update for reweeters, etc. 1261 page views
Tweet to defeat the money monster 2508 page views
Tweeting launch of stage two 1175 page views
Two reply tweets I received prompted me to post How do you build a movement? and to tweet links to that.
Today I received the below tweet from the MAYDAY Team saying I was banned for spamming.
@RobShattuckAL06 not affecting efforts at all. this is an issue only for you. but you were banned bc of spam, not being a candidate.
— MAYDAY.US (@MAYDAYUS) May 26, 2015
Ten days ago I posted Spreading MAYDAY via Twitter, which sought to obtain discussion and views about my tweeting. This was not the first time I tried to put the same up for discussion.
Now that the MAYDAY Team has spoken and said I have been banned for spamming, I wish to resume solicitation of discussion about this matter.
To me it seems that it should be fairly easy for you to make your own evaluation of this.
First, evaluate for yourself how you think the MAYDAY Team and its use of the social media are doing as MAYDAY goes about trying to "rally the most effective, targeted citizen lobbying campaign we can to close the gap on reform," having as a goal to recruit 70 members of Congress to support fundamental reform. In making your evaluation, you might find helpful How is the MAYDAY rally going?
Please note the "Help us recruit more people to help" request in 3. Spread the Word of the "Take Action" webpage on the MAYDAY site, and see what you can find in the MAYDAY social media evidencing recruiting efforts (other than by myself) going on for MAYDAY.
Compare the messaging that MAYDAY team has done with the messaging I have done by means of my tweeting.
My tweeting has attracted a great deal of interest from MAYDAY supporters and supporters of other campaign finance reform organizations. This interest has been manifested by hundreds of retweets, favoritings, follows, etc., and thousands of page views of links to my blog that I have been tweeting. A partial listing of blog entries and numbers of page views is as follows:
If you want to go outside the box 164 page views
Start your district's CFR campaign this weekend 566 page views
You be a Congressional candidate 503 page views
Help MAYDAY's Congressional calling campaign 539 page views
Report on #TweetToDefeatMoney 365 page views
#TweetToDefeatMoney, Tweet Sheet 1 621 page views
MAYDAY's 2015 plan and public mobilization 1863 page views
I tweet to defeat the money monster 1193 page views
To campaign finance reform organizations 819 page views
Update for reweeters, etc. 1261 page views
Tweet to defeat the money monster 2508 page views
Tweeting launch of stage two 1175 page views
I have informed MAYDAY and the MAYDAY team many times about my tweeting and about the interest my tweeting was attracting from MAYDAY supporters and from supporters of other campaign finance reform organizations. MAYDAY never expressed any encouragement of my work or any interest in the positive results my work was achieving, and steadfastly declined to engage in any discussion about the benefits versus disadvantages of my tweeting.
As indicated in How do you build a movement?, I was prepared to chalk up MAYDAY's nonresponsiveness to limitations MAYDAY felt it was constrained by under the Federal campaign finance "coordination" rules.
The MAYDAY team has now said, no, that is not the reason, and I have been banned because of my spamming.
I acknowledge that some people have strong negative reactions to receiving unsolicited tweets from tweeters they do not know, and some of those people may even oppose campaign finance reform because I have tweeted to them. This has been very minuscule in my experience.
That very small downside needs to be weighed against the benefit of inspiring greater interest and activism by MAYDAY supporters and other campaign finance reformers, and ultimately of spreading the MAYDAY name and the cause of campaign finance reform to the public generally. I cite the foregoing interest that my tweeting has attracted as demonstrating the benefits of the tweeting I am doing. You can do your own evaluation.
Update 5/27
The MAYDAY team has now said, no, that is not the reason, and I have been banned because of my spamming.
I acknowledge that some people have strong negative reactions to receiving unsolicited tweets from tweeters they do not know, and some of those people may even oppose campaign finance reform because I have tweeted to them. This has been very minuscule in my experience.
That very small downside needs to be weighed against the benefit of inspiring greater interest and activism by MAYDAY supporters and other campaign finance reformers, and ultimately of spreading the MAYDAY name and the cause of campaign finance reform to the public generally. I cite the foregoing interest that my tweeting has attracted as demonstrating the benefits of the tweeting I am doing. You can do your own evaluation.
Update 5/27
@RobShattuckAL06 This isn't new. Or shouldn't be. You were banned *last year* from fb for nonstop spam & self-promotion in unrelated threads
— MAYDAY.US (@MAYDAYUS) May 27, 2015
@MAYDAYUS Thanks, but I think hundreds of reformers are supportive of my efforts. I will continue to try to grow that number.
— Rob Shattuck (@RobShattuckAL06) May 27, 2015
Sunday, May 24, 2015
How do you build a movement?
During the past few days, I have been tweeting about frustration with MAYDAY's congressional calling campaign, and suggesting that an impediment is MAYDAY's unwillingness to confront, decide and state expressly on its website what limitations there are on MAYDAY's efforts in 2015 by reason of the Federal campaign finance "coordination" rules. (See MAYDAY and the "coordination" rules.)
Two reply tweets I received used the word "movement." One of the reply tweets said "MAYDAY's a movement & not a campaign [I had used word 'campaign']." Professor Lessig was included as a recipient of this reply tweet, and he did a retweet of the reply tweet.
A second reply tweet said, "MAYDAY's grass roots movement is to stop big dark money from controlling our government. Your point confounds."
OK, let's discuss, "How do you build a movement?"
I have been trying arduously to contribute to "building a movement."
Please take a look at my blog entry To campaign finance reform organizations and click through some of the links set forth there. I think the same shows hard work by myself in trying to contribute to "building a movement."
For my hard work, I got no response from MAYDAY. See Report on #TweetToDefeatMoney.
What is the explanation for this?
I was prepared to chalk it up to the limitations on MAYDAY by reason of the "coordination" rules (per my discussion at MAYDAY and the "coordination" rules).
If that, in the words of the second reply tweet, "confounds" regarding "MAYDAY's grass roots movement . . . to stop big dark money from controlling our government," then I am confounded.
How can MAYDAY be so unresponsive to my I tweet to defeat the money monster efforts, as well as to other things I have been trying to do to help build a movement?
Wednesday, May 20, 2015
MAYDAY and "coordination" rules
There is frustration with MAYDAY's congressional calling campaign. See I'm frustrated and confused. Are we too lazy to reform government?
I suggest that an impediment is MAYDAY's unwillingness to confront, decide and state expressly on its website what limitations there are on MAYDAY's efforts in 2015 by reason of the Federal campaign finance "coordination" rules.
The reason I say this is that such unwillingness is keeping people from knowing about efforts being made by persons who are or may become Congressional candidates themselves, and people are further unaware that MAYDAY is not encouraging the efforts of these persons, even though these persons can contribute much more than average to MAYDAY's cause.
If people were informed about the foregoing, they could be more encouraged about MAYDAY's objectives, than is manifested by the above I'm frustrated and confused. Are we too lazy to reform government? topic appearing on the Reddit.
Update 5/21
For current examples and information about efforts I am making that MAYDAY has not been encouraging about (presumably because of the "coordination" rules), see Spreading MAYDAY via Twitter and How is the MAYDAY rally going?
I believe, until MAYDAY decides and informs people what limitations there are on MAYDAY's actions by reason of the "coordination" rules, people will be ignorant or have distorted views about what MAYDAY is and is not doing in its campaign and whether there are things that need to be done outside of MAYDAY (because of the limitations on MAYDAY).
Update 5/22
I had this tweet interchange today:
Professor Lessig retweeted Anna Brock's tweet, which I interpret as Professor Lessig adapting her tweet as his response as well to what I said in my tweet (including the link).
I am not sure how the response tweet should be interpreted.
As to whether a "movement" or a "campaign" is involved, Professor Lessig's email announcing the plan for 2015 said, "We are going to rally the most effective, targeted citizen lobbying campaign [emphasis supplied] we can to close the gap on reform." http://blog.mayday.us/post/117957056365/lawrence-lessigs-email-announcing-the-plan-for
I suggest that an impediment is MAYDAY's unwillingness to confront, decide and state expressly on its website what limitations there are on MAYDAY's efforts in 2015 by reason of the Federal campaign finance "coordination" rules.
The reason I say this is that such unwillingness is keeping people from knowing about efforts being made by persons who are or may become Congressional candidates themselves, and people are further unaware that MAYDAY is not encouraging the efforts of these persons, even though these persons can contribute much more than average to MAYDAY's cause.
If people were informed about the foregoing, they could be more encouraged about MAYDAY's objectives, than is manifested by the above I'm frustrated and confused. Are we too lazy to reform government? topic appearing on the Reddit.
Update 5/21
For current examples and information about efforts I am making that MAYDAY has not been encouraging about (presumably because of the "coordination" rules), see Spreading MAYDAY via Twitter and How is the MAYDAY rally going?
I believe, until MAYDAY decides and informs people what limitations there are on MAYDAY's actions by reason of the "coordination" rules, people will be ignorant or have distorted views about what MAYDAY is and is not doing in its campaign and whether there are things that need to be done outside of MAYDAY (because of the limitations on MAYDAY).
Update 5/22
I had this tweet interchange today:
@RobShattuckAL06 MAYDAY's a movement not a campaign & supporters are kept well-informed via e-mails, blogs by @lessig & a 'strategy' Reddit.
— Anna Brock (@anna_brock) May 22, 2015
Professor Lessig retweeted Anna Brock's tweet, which I interpret as Professor Lessig adapting her tweet as his response as well to what I said in my tweet (including the link).
I am not sure how the response tweet should be interpreted.
As to whether a "movement" or a "campaign" is involved, Professor Lessig's email announcing the plan for 2015 said, "We are going to rally the most effective, targeted citizen lobbying campaign [emphasis supplied] we can to close the gap on reform." http://blog.mayday.us/post/117957056365/lawrence-lessigs-email-announcing-the-plan-for
I don't think MAYDAY supporters have been well informed about the limitations on MAYDAY's conduct of its campaign growing out of the campaign finance "coordination" rules.
Perhaps MAYDAY does not think the limitations are of practical significance, and further thinks such limitations are so insignificant that MAYDAY supporters don't need to know what the limitations are, and MAYDAY need not say on its website (all as MAYDAY is interpreting the "coordination" rules for itself).
Perhaps MAYDAY does not think the limitations are of practical significance, and further thinks such limitations are so insignificant that MAYDAY supporters don't need to know what the limitations are, and MAYDAY need not say on its website (all as MAYDAY is interpreting the "coordination" rules for itself).
The starting limitation seems to be that Congressional candidates may not post on the MAYDAY social media or are subject to censoring by MAYDAY without supporters being informed about the censoring that is going on.
The foregoing leads to MAYDAY supporters being restricted in getting information about what Congressional candidates are doing and advocating to advance MAYDAY's objective, and about what MAYDAY internally thinks about the same, including whether or not MAYDAY believes particular actions or advocacy to be beneficial, or not, and should be encouraged and supported, or not. MAYDAY's silence on such matters is subject to misinterpretation by supporters, very likely in a negative way that MAYDAY's silence is to be interpreted as MAYDAY disapproving of particular actions or advocacy.
Let me give an example. There was a post have you called Congress yet? why not? three days ago on the Reddit. The post indicates that there was 1 comment, but that comment is not there now. The comment was by me, and it indicated the tweeting I had been doing to solicit Congressional calling by using the hashtags #readyforbernie and #StampStampede, as is described in How is the MAYDAY rally going?
The comment was deleted by MAYDAY, and the deletion restricted supporters from learning about the tweeting I was doing, and from forming their own views about the type of tweeting I was doing, and deciding to do it themselves, or not.
Equally significant is that MAYDAY supporters are deprived of knowing what MAYDAY thinks about the tweeting I am doing.
MAYDAY supporters can decide for themselves whether they think any of the above is important for them to know, and whether they are being restricted in learning about the same.
Update 5/24
See How do you build a movement?
The foregoing leads to MAYDAY supporters being restricted in getting information about what Congressional candidates are doing and advocating to advance MAYDAY's objective, and about what MAYDAY internally thinks about the same, including whether or not MAYDAY believes particular actions or advocacy to be beneficial, or not, and should be encouraged and supported, or not. MAYDAY's silence on such matters is subject to misinterpretation by supporters, very likely in a negative way that MAYDAY's silence is to be interpreted as MAYDAY disapproving of particular actions or advocacy.
Let me give an example. There was a post have you called Congress yet? why not? three days ago on the Reddit. The post indicates that there was 1 comment, but that comment is not there now. The comment was by me, and it indicated the tweeting I had been doing to solicit Congressional calling by using the hashtags #readyforbernie and #StampStampede, as is described in How is the MAYDAY rally going?
The comment was deleted by MAYDAY, and the deletion restricted supporters from learning about the tweeting I was doing, and from forming their own views about the type of tweeting I was doing, and deciding to do it themselves, or not.
Equally significant is that MAYDAY supporters are deprived of knowing what MAYDAY thinks about the tweeting I am doing.
MAYDAY supporters can decide for themselves whether they think any of the above is important for them to know, and whether they are being restricted in learning about the same.
Update 5/24
See How do you build a movement?
Saturday, May 16, 2015
Spreading MAYDAY via Twitter
Your comments and suggestions are solicited about the use of Twitter to spread MAYDAY's name and message.
I am particularly interested in your views on the massive sending of unsolicited directed tweets to large numbers of Twitter users whom one does not know.
In the past year I have sent more than 25,000 tweets. Many of them have been sent by using Twitter follower lists, and sending the same tweet message to scores or hundreds of followers appearing on a Twitter follower list. In doing this, I have used many different follower lists. Also, I have been using hashtags and sending directed tweets to persons who tweet using a hashtag.
For months, I have been urging other campaign finance reformers to send tweets in the same way as I have been doing.
You can find recent examples of my tweeting described in my preceding blog entry How is the MAYDAY rally going?
If you are a MAYDAYer or other campaign finance reformer, what do you think of how the cause and the message you espouse are getting spread on Twitter if people are limiting themselves to tweets and retweets that are going only to their Twitter followers?
I acknowledge there is some spreading effect of tweets and retweets going to people's followers, but it seems slow and limited compared to massive direct tweeting to people who are not one's own followers.
I do not know of any other campaign finance reformers who have been sending tweets in the way I have been doing the past year.
I think if other campaign finance reformers started sending tweets the way I have been doing, there could be meaningful expansion of getting the cause and message out to the public.
What do you think?
Thanks.
I am particularly interested in your views on the massive sending of unsolicited directed tweets to large numbers of Twitter users whom one does not know.
In the past year I have sent more than 25,000 tweets. Many of them have been sent by using Twitter follower lists, and sending the same tweet message to scores or hundreds of followers appearing on a Twitter follower list. In doing this, I have used many different follower lists. Also, I have been using hashtags and sending directed tweets to persons who tweet using a hashtag.
For months, I have been urging other campaign finance reformers to send tweets in the same way as I have been doing.
You can find recent examples of my tweeting described in my preceding blog entry How is the MAYDAY rally going?
If you are a MAYDAYer or other campaign finance reformer, what do you think of how the cause and the message you espouse are getting spread on Twitter if people are limiting themselves to tweets and retweets that are going only to their Twitter followers?
I acknowledge there is some spreading effect of tweets and retweets going to people's followers, but it seems slow and limited compared to massive direct tweeting to people who are not one's own followers.
I do not know of any other campaign finance reformers who have been sending tweets in the way I have been doing the past year.
I think if other campaign finance reformers started sending tweets the way I have been doing, there could be meaningful expansion of getting the cause and message out to the public.
What do you think?
Thanks.
Friday, May 8, 2015
How is the MAYDAY rally going?
On May 1st, MAYDAY announced its plan to "rally the most effective, targeted citizen lobbying campaign we can to close the gap on reform," having as a goal to recruit 70 members of Congress to support fundamental reform. See Lawrence Lessig’s email announcing the plan for 2015
In response, there have a couple hundred tweets by supporters using the hashtag #Leader4Reform and having the message, "Help @MAYDAYUS recruit 70 more congressional leaders committed to fight political corruption. #Leader4Reform http://goo.gl/RqP4kG ."
Yesterday, on the MAYDAYPAC Facebook page, Lee Woodsmall posted:
Most of the past week's postings on the MAYDAY Reddit have been "News & Views."
For a couple weeks prior to May 1st, the MAYDAY team had a topic posted on Reddit Seeking citizen input on MAYDAY's goals in 2015. The topic was kept at the head of the Reddit and received many comments and replies from supporters, who put forth numerous ideas and suggestions. When the May 1st announcement was made, the topic was demoted to a position on the second page of the Reddit listing. In the past week, the topic has received only one additional posting.
The postings on the MAYDAY.US Facebook page and the MAYDAYPAC group page have been largely informational, and little "rallying" has gone on, by MAYDAY and supporters who have posted on the Facebook pages.
I pay particular attention to Twitter. During the past week, I have been watching the hashtags #getmoneyout, #maydayus, #maydaypac, #Leader4Reform and #readyforbernie.
I think other organizations and persons, and their supporters, are showing more activity and interest on Twitter than are MAYDAY and its supporters.
,
I think MAYDAY''s call to action could and should be doing better.
Update 5/10
I am continuing the tweeting I started a week ago, which tweeting is indicated at http://www.reddit.com/r/MaydayPAC/comments/32pf6i/seeking_citizen_input_on_maydays_goals_in_2015/cqu53wz
There are still tweeters tweeting about standing with Ben & Jerry against stupid tax cuts using the hashtag #getmoneyout. To them, I am tweeting "Those who stand with B&J against tax cuts should #CallCongress with #maydayus to "get money out." https://mayday.us/take-action/#call-congress"
To tweeters using the #readyforbernie hashtag, I am tweeting, "Those who are ready for Bernie should call Congress for MAYDAY.US to "get money out." https://mayday.us/take-action/#call-congress "
Only MAYDAY is in a position to investigate the extent to which my tweets have resulted in click throughs to the https://mayday.us/take-action/#call-congress webpage. I estimate between 1 in 10 to 1 in 5 of the recipients have responded with a retweet, favoriting, follow, etc.
I have no idea at this time whether my tweeting will produce any Congressional calling by recipients of my tweets.
Update 5/11
Today, I replied on Twitter to numerous persons who evidenced interest in my tweet solicitations, and I included @MAYDAYUS on my reply so MAYDAY could see what results I was achieving.
I will be an interested observer of whether the job position of Lead Developer for which MAYDAY posted a solicitation this afternoon at http://www.reddit.com/r/MaydayPAC/comments/35n00c/hiring_lead_developer_for_maydayus/ will give MAYDAY a boost.
Update 5/13
The #getmoneyout hashtag continues very active. Yesterday evening I sent to the most recent tweeters who used #getmoneyout this tweet from me: "Please help "get money out" and call Congress for #MAYDAYUS. https://mayday.us/take-action/#call-congress". I got responses back from some indicating interest, and I will pass these along to MAYDAY.
In response, there have a couple hundred tweets by supporters using the hashtag #Leader4Reform and having the message, "Help @MAYDAYUS recruit 70 more congressional leaders committed to fight political corruption. #Leader4Reform http://goo.gl/RqP4kG ."
Yesterday, on the MAYDAYPAC Facebook page, Lee Woodsmall posted:
Hey! I want to know: Why haven't you called Congress yet? Why won't you call Congress? What would make you call Congress? Chances are, if you're reading this, you haven't done it. But it's what we need, and I want to know what we can do to motivate more people to get involved. I get it, calling Congress isn't sexy. It probably isn't your definition of fun. But it's the only thing they listen to other than $. We don't have $ to give, but we have our voice. Why not lend it to the cause? No wrong answers; I want honest feedback. Thanks!Also, MAYDAY has called special attention to a post of a new supporter telling how she came to make a decision to call her Senators and Congresspeople. See Call my Senators and Congresspeople!? Gulp.
Most of the past week's postings on the MAYDAY Reddit have been "News & Views."
For a couple weeks prior to May 1st, the MAYDAY team had a topic posted on Reddit Seeking citizen input on MAYDAY's goals in 2015. The topic was kept at the head of the Reddit and received many comments and replies from supporters, who put forth numerous ideas and suggestions. When the May 1st announcement was made, the topic was demoted to a position on the second page of the Reddit listing. In the past week, the topic has received only one additional posting.
The postings on the MAYDAY.US Facebook page and the MAYDAYPAC group page have been largely informational, and little "rallying" has gone on, by MAYDAY and supporters who have posted on the Facebook pages.
I pay particular attention to Twitter. During the past week, I have been watching the hashtags #getmoneyout, #maydayus, #maydaypac, #Leader4Reform and #readyforbernie.
I think other organizations and persons, and their supporters, are showing more activity and interest on Twitter than are MAYDAY and its supporters.
,
I think MAYDAY''s call to action could and should be doing better.
Update 5/10
I am continuing the tweeting I started a week ago, which tweeting is indicated at http://www.reddit.com/r/MaydayPAC/comments/32pf6i/seeking_citizen_input_on_maydays_goals_in_2015/cqu53wz
There are still tweeters tweeting about standing with Ben & Jerry against stupid tax cuts using the hashtag #getmoneyout. To them, I am tweeting "Those who stand with B&J against tax cuts should #CallCongress with #maydayus to "get money out." https://mayday.us/take-action/#call-congress"
To tweeters using the #readyforbernie hashtag, I am tweeting, "Those who are ready for Bernie should call Congress for MAYDAY.US to "get money out." https://mayday.us/take-action/#call-congress "
Only MAYDAY is in a position to investigate the extent to which my tweets have resulted in click throughs to the https://mayday.us/take-action/#call-congress webpage. I estimate between 1 in 10 to 1 in 5 of the recipients have responded with a retweet, favoriting, follow, etc.
I have no idea at this time whether my tweeting will produce any Congressional calling by recipients of my tweets.
Update 5/11
Today, I replied on Twitter to numerous persons who evidenced interest in my tweet solicitations, and I included @MAYDAYUS on my reply so MAYDAY could see what results I was achieving.
I will be an interested observer of whether the job position of Lead Developer for which MAYDAY posted a solicitation this afternoon at http://www.reddit.com/r/MaydayPAC/comments/35n00c/hiring_lead_developer_for_maydayus/ will give MAYDAY a boost.
Update 5/13
The #getmoneyout hashtag continues very active. Yesterday evening I sent to the most recent tweeters who used #getmoneyout this tweet from me: "Please help "get money out" and call Congress for #MAYDAYUS. https://mayday.us/take-action/#call-congress". I got responses back from some indicating interest, and I will pass these along to MAYDAY.
Also, yesterday, Lee Woodsmall's above post on Facebook was put on the Reddit as well, at http://www.reddit.com/r/MaydayPAC/comments/35fplt/have_you_called_congress_yet_why_not/.
Further, MAYDAY initiated a weekly Citizen Town Hall on Tuesday evenings. Yesterday's Town Hall can be viewed at https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=kHzgDsHx08I. In the Town Hall it was reported that 2400 people have signed the Lessig/McKinnon letter, 2500 persons have signed on as volunteers, and over 500 calls have been made to Representatives.
Update 5/14
Now I am sending to tweeters who have used the #StampStampede hashtag this tweet: "Stamping stampeders should also call Congress with #maydayus to "get money out." https://mayday.us/take-action/#call-congress.
Further, MAYDAY initiated a weekly Citizen Town Hall on Tuesday evenings. Yesterday's Town Hall can be viewed at https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=kHzgDsHx08I. In the Town Hall it was reported that 2400 people have signed the Lessig/McKinnon letter, 2500 persons have signed on as volunteers, and over 500 calls have been made to Representatives.
Update 5/14
Now I am sending to tweeters who have used the #StampStampede hashtag this tweet: "Stamping stampeders should also call Congress with #maydayus to "get money out." https://mayday.us/take-action/#call-congress.
Monday, May 4, 2015
If you want to go outside the box
On May 1st, MAYDAY launched its 2015 citizens' lobbying campaign to recruit 70 more members of the House of Representatives to support fundamental reform.
MAYDAY has set forth this Take Action protocol for citizen participation in the campaign.
There is plenty for MAYDAY supporters to do there.
If that does not satisfy and you would like to do more (go outside the box), I would like to throw something out for you.
I think most agree that "fundamental reform" is a long shot. It is a long shot for MAYDAY, and it is a long shot for other campaign finance reform organizations that are hard at work on their various agendas for bringing about change.
I would like to think that anything that adds to the collective efforts can help.
I would like to add something related to MAYDAY's objective of recruiting 70 more members of Congress to support fundamental reform.
Members of Congress have hundreds of appeals lapping at them from their constituents. The prime motivation of these Congresspersons was to get into office, and their prime motivation is to stay there. They are most responsive to their calculations of what will help accomplish that.
"Fundamental reform" comes down to said calculations, meaning that "fundamental reformists" need to maximize impressing on the members of Congress that "this will affect you."
"Fundamental reformists" are competing with hundreds of others in importuning their Congresspersons about many things.
The adage of "the squeaky wheel gets the oil" should guide "fundamental reformists."
A focal point for the "squeaking" by "fundamental reformists" is, I believe, very beneficial.
Consider Bernie Sanders getting into the Presidential race. If you are a "fundamental reformist," aren't you going to look for ways to synergize your messaging with Bernie's candidacy?
Think about it, and decide for yourself what you think of the benefit (or not) of having a candidate to be a focal point for campaign finance reform messaging.
If you agree that candidates as focal points can be very helpful, please apply the idea at the Congressional level of MAYDAY's overall plan to elect a reform minded Congress by 2016.
Can Congressional candidates be found who would be good focal points?
I don't know, but I have been working on it.
Please read and consider You be a Congressional candidate.
Than tell me what you think.
Thanks.
MAYDAY has set forth this Take Action protocol for citizen participation in the campaign.
There is plenty for MAYDAY supporters to do there.
If that does not satisfy and you would like to do more (go outside the box), I would like to throw something out for you.
I think most agree that "fundamental reform" is a long shot. It is a long shot for MAYDAY, and it is a long shot for other campaign finance reform organizations that are hard at work on their various agendas for bringing about change.
I would like to think that anything that adds to the collective efforts can help.
I would like to add something related to MAYDAY's objective of recruiting 70 more members of Congress to support fundamental reform.
Members of Congress have hundreds of appeals lapping at them from their constituents. The prime motivation of these Congresspersons was to get into office, and their prime motivation is to stay there. They are most responsive to their calculations of what will help accomplish that.
"Fundamental reform" comes down to said calculations, meaning that "fundamental reformists" need to maximize impressing on the members of Congress that "this will affect you."
"Fundamental reformists" are competing with hundreds of others in importuning their Congresspersons about many things.
The adage of "the squeaky wheel gets the oil" should guide "fundamental reformists."
A focal point for the "squeaking" by "fundamental reformists" is, I believe, very beneficial.
Consider Bernie Sanders getting into the Presidential race. If you are a "fundamental reformist," aren't you going to look for ways to synergize your messaging with Bernie's candidacy?
Think about it, and decide for yourself what you think of the benefit (or not) of having a candidate to be a focal point for campaign finance reform messaging.
If you agree that candidates as focal points can be very helpful, please apply the idea at the Congressional level of MAYDAY's overall plan to elect a reform minded Congress by 2016.
Can Congressional candidates be found who would be good focal points?
I don't know, but I have been working on it.
Please read and consider You be a Congressional candidate.
Than tell me what you think.
Thanks.
Saturday, April 25, 2015
Can MAYDAY do this?
In its plan to elect a reform minded Congress by 2016, MAYDAY.US will, on May 1st, launch a "platform to support the biggest citizen lobbying campaign we possibly can."
The only component of the platform that has been made public thus far is a Congressional calling campaign in order to put members of Congress on "notice" and get on the "right side" of reform. A discussion of this is taking place on the MAYDAY Reddit at http://www.reddit.com/r/MaydayPAC/comments/32pf6i/seeking_citizen_input_on_maydays_goals_in_2015/.
I am pushing for the actions described at You be a Congressional candidate and Start your district's CFR campaign this weekend.
Update 4/29:
I believe @RepresentDotUs and @StampStampede are reacting in a positive way to my importuning of them.
The only component of the platform that has been made public thus far is a Congressional calling campaign in order to put members of Congress on "notice" and get on the "right side" of reform. A discussion of this is taking place on the MAYDAY Reddit at http://www.reddit.com/r/MaydayPAC/comments/32pf6i/seeking_citizen_input_on_maydays_goals_in_2015/.
I am pushing for the actions described at You be a Congressional candidate and Start your district's CFR campaign this weekend.
Can MAYDAY include the foregoing in the platform it announces on May 1st?
Is it too ambitious? Is it premature? Would it be unproductive or counterproductive? Are there limitations under the "coordination" rules that make it unworkable? (See Fresh Questions About "Coordination" Rules.) Would other CFR organizations be willing to help by urging their supporters to do volunteer Internet activity in their Congressional districts? Would other CFR organizations consider themselves limited in doing such urging by reason of the "coordination" rules?
Update 4/28:
Is it too ambitious? Is it premature? Would it be unproductive or counterproductive? Are there limitations under the "coordination" rules that make it unworkable? (See Fresh Questions About "Coordination" Rules.) Would other CFR organizations be willing to help by urging their supporters to do volunteer Internet activity in their Congressional districts? Would other CFR organizations consider themselves limited in doing such urging by reason of the "coordination" rules?
Update 4/28:
Would @MoveToAmend urge its supporters to do Internet activity in their Cong'l districts to help MAYDAY do this: http://t.co/iXN7jMg7Nq?
— Rob Shattuck (@RobShattuckAL06) April 25, 2015
Would @RepresentDotUs urge its supporters to do Internet activity in their Cong'l districts to help MAYDAY do this: http://t.co/iXN7jMg7Nq?
— Rob Shattuck (@RobShattuckAL06) April 25, 2015
Would @WolfPAChq urge its supporters to do Internet activity in their Cong'l districts to help MAYDAY do this: http://t.co/iXN7jMg7Nq?
— Rob Shattuck (@RobShattuckAL06) April 25, 2015
Would @StampStampede urge its supporters to do Internet activity in their Cong'l districts to help MAYDAY do this: http://t.co/iXN7jMg7Nq?
— Rob Shattuck (@RobShattuckAL06) April 25, 2015
Would @nhrebellion urge its supporters to do Internet activity in their Cong'l districts to help MAYDAY do this: http://t.co/iXN7jMg7Nq?
— Rob Shattuck (@RobShattuckAL06) April 25, 2015
Would @takebackorg urge its supporters to do Internet activity in their Cong'l districts to help MAYDAY do this: http://t.co/iXN7jMg7Nq?
— Rob Shattuck (@RobShattuckAL06) April 25, 2015
Should CFR organizations cross-cultivate their supporters? See http://www.reddit.com/r/MaydayPAC/comments/32pf6i/seeking_citizen_input_on_maydays_goals_in_2015/cqq0z9aUpdate 4/29:
I believe @RepresentDotUs and @StampStampede are reacting in a positive way to my importuning of them.
Friday, April 24, 2015
Start your district's CFR campaign this weekend
It's not a big deal what I have proposed in You be a Congressional candidate.
You can make a difference for campaign finance reform in your Congressional district.
You don't have to be the candidate.
Just start talking up the idea with your friends. Find people in your Congressional district who are willing to do volunteer Internet activity. It doesn't have to be a lot. Two hours a week by a volunteer would be meaningful.
Deciding on who should be the candidate can come later.
Getting organized is most important for now.
Once you get going, things will come naturally.
Update: Can MAYDAY do this?
You can make a difference for campaign finance reform in your Congressional district.
You don't have to be the candidate.
Just start talking up the idea with your friends. Find people in your Congressional district who are willing to do volunteer Internet activity. It doesn't have to be a lot. Two hours a week by a volunteer would be meaningful.
Deciding on who should be the candidate can come later.
Getting organized is most important for now.
Once you get going, things will come naturally.
Update: Can MAYDAY do this?
Thursday, April 23, 2015
You be a Congressional candidate
As MAYDAY.US starts its Congressional calling campaign in its plan to elect a reform minded Congress by 2016, please consider being a Congressional candidate yourself.
This suggestion is not so ridiculous as you may think.
Please consider some things.
First, be a Congressional candidate who is not subject to the restrictions of Federal campaign finance law.
So long as you don't raise more than $5000 in contributions or spend more than $5000 in doing your campaign, you are not a candidate subject to the restrictions of Federal campaign finance law.
This can make you a valuable asset in the battle for campaign finance reform.
The $5000 limit on expenditures will largely confine you to the Internet and social media, but I believe you can still play an important role.
Under the Federal campaign finance law, the Internet, by reason of its democratic nature and low cost for anyone to use, is treated favorably compared to other forms of political advertising having a higher cost and being less democratically available for anyone to use.
The Federal Campaign Guide, at page 40, says this:
Consider how you could play into the Congressional calling campaign MAYDAY is trying to get going. The calling campaign in your Congressional district needs callers, and the "money in politics" issue needs publicity in your district, and that can call attention to the calling campaign. Putting yourself out as a Congressional candidate (but not subject to Federal campaign law restrictions), and getting friends and others to engage in volunteer Internet activity, could, in a couple months time, achieve material visibility in your district.
Think big. Think about campaign finance reformers in other Congressional districts becoming aware of what you are doing, and they say, "Hey, we (or one of us) can do this in our Congressional district."
Wow, wouldn't that be something if this got going in scores or hundreds of Congressional districts in 2015?
Double wow, I would say.
.
So, get going. become a Congressional candidate in your district.
EDIT 4/24: Start your district's CFR campaign this weekend
This suggestion is not so ridiculous as you may think.
Please consider some things.
First, be a Congressional candidate who is not subject to the restrictions of Federal campaign finance law.
So long as you don't raise more than $5000 in contributions or spend more than $5000 in doing your campaign, you are not a candidate subject to the restrictions of Federal campaign finance law.
This can make you a valuable asset in the battle for campaign finance reform.
The $5000 limit on expenditures will largely confine you to the Internet and social media, but I believe you can still play an important role.
Under the Federal campaign finance law, the Internet, by reason of its democratic nature and low cost for anyone to use, is treated favorably compared to other forms of political advertising having a higher cost and being less democratically available for anyone to use.
The Federal Campaign Guide, at page 40, says this:
Internet Volunteer ActivityThe 2016 elections are possibly shaping up to make "money in politics" a significant issue that will receive much publicity. Early in her campaign, Hillary Clinton has injected into the political debate the matter of a constitutional amendment to overturn the Citizens United case. Today's breaking story in The New York Times "Cash Flowed to Clinton Foundation as Russians Pressed for Control of Uranium Company" will generate much public conversation about the role of "money in politics."
General Exception
An uncompensated individual or group of uncompensated individuals may engage in certain voluntary Internet activities for the purpose of influencing a federal election without restriction. These exempted Internet activities would not result in a contribution or an expenditure under the Act and would not trigger any registration or reporting requirements with the FEC. This exemption applies to individuals acting with or without the knowledge or consent of a campaign or a political party committee. 100.94 and 100.155. Exempted Internet activities include, but are not limited to, sending or forwarding electronic mail, providing a hyperlink to a website, creating, maintaining or hosting a website and paying a nominal fee for the use of a website.
Consider how you could play into the Congressional calling campaign MAYDAY is trying to get going. The calling campaign in your Congressional district needs callers, and the "money in politics" issue needs publicity in your district, and that can call attention to the calling campaign. Putting yourself out as a Congressional candidate (but not subject to Federal campaign law restrictions), and getting friends and others to engage in volunteer Internet activity, could, in a couple months time, achieve material visibility in your district.
Think big. Think about campaign finance reformers in other Congressional districts becoming aware of what you are doing, and they say, "Hey, we (or one of us) can do this in our Congressional district."
Wow, wouldn't that be something if this got going in scores or hundreds of Congressional districts in 2015?
Double wow, I would say.
.
So, get going. become a Congressional candidate in your district.
EDIT 4/24: Start your district's CFR campaign this weekend
Monday, April 20, 2015
Lessig speaks; please you call for MAYDAY
Lawrence Lessig speaks tonight at 7 pm in the Flatiron District in Manhattan. The speech is part of RunWarrenRun.
Professor Lessig explains why Elizabeth Warren should run. In Professor Lessig's words, Elizabeth Warren should run:
MAYDAY.US and its supporters are hard at work on this at the Congressional level.
Please tweet to @MAYDAYUS and tell them you want to help out and you want to call your Representatives in Congress to ask them to support reform.
Professor Lessig explains why Elizabeth Warren should run. In Professor Lessig's words, Elizabeth Warren should run:
For the thing that she speaks so powerfully about — a rigged system — is rigged precisely because of the corruption caused by the way we fund campaigns. And yet, there is a significant chance that we Democrats will have a primary without any candidate who would even mention the issue, let alone commit to reform that might address it.
Hillary Clinton is incredibly strong and incredibly smart. In normal times, she’d make an extraordinary president. But these are not normal times. And the corrupt system we have now was birthed under her husband’s watch. She (and he) have depended upon it to get to the place she is now. She had nothing but impatient scorn for Obama and Edwards when they pressed the issue in 2008. And she has offered nothing to demonstrate that she either gets it or cares about addressing it. Everything indicates that she believes she can govern effectively without removing this cancer that has compromised our democracy.
She can’t.
No one can (which is why we’re even seeing rumblings about the issue from the Right). And what we desperately need now is a contest that will force the issue into the center, and give us at least a chance of addressing it in 2016.
Yet we’re facing the prospect of a Democratic non-primary campaign, without a single debate, that generates a nominee who has not had to enlist the support of a grassroots movement. That’s a dangerous prospect, not just for Democrats but for our democracy.
Senator Warren wouldn’t just create the genuine, hard-fought primary contest that this country needs. She—and, I believe, she alone—could also galvanize the movement that we’ll need if the next president of the United States is to have a prayer of actually taking on this the hardest, most important issue of our generation — because only by solving this can we solve anything else.If you don't know, tens of thousands of Americans are at work battling to defeat the corruption caused by the way we fund campaigns.
MAYDAY.US and its supporters are hard at work on this at the Congressional level.
Please tweet to @MAYDAYUS and tell them you want to help out and you want to call your Representatives in Congress to ask them to support reform.
Friday, April 17, 2015
Help MAYDAY's Congressional calling campaign
[Update 4/22: I am going to try again with the CFR organizations. It would seem so easy for them to tweet to their followers to let their followers know about MAYDAY's Congressional calling campaign, in case some would like to pitch in. Maybe the reason the organizations won't do this is they don't believe it would do one iota of good for MAYDAY and their own mission. Maybe the organizations believe that any good for MAYDAY would be offset by an undesirable distraction of their followers away from their particular CFR's activities. I don't know. It just seems worth another try with them.]
To organizations and others out there who have grassroots action experience:
MAYDAY is trying to start a Congressional calling campaign in order to put members of Congress on "notice" and get on the "right side" of reform. A discussion of this is taking place on the MAYDAY Reddit at http://www.reddit.com/r/MaydayPAC/comments/32pf6i/seeking_citizen_input_on_maydays_goals_in_2015/.
Can you organizations and others make suggestions for MAYDAY getting its Congressional calling campaign going?
Concerning grassroots action such as the calling campaign, I have asked the question of how important is it that there be a "social" aspect.
I gave as an example, the #RepDay15 of Represent.Us on Wednesday. Groups of people around the country got out with signs. The groups had a physical "social" aspect, which I think people like very much. The "socializing" was buttressed by sharing on Twitter. See https://twitter.com/search?q=%23RepDay15&src=tyah
Another example of the attraction of physical "socializing" seemed to me the NHRebellion walks.
I don't think the "social" dimension must be physical, in person "socializing" in order to attract grassroots participation, but I think MAYDAY should give much thought to how to create a "social" dimension to the Congressional calling campaign MAYDAY wants to carry out.
To organizations and others out there who have grassroots action experience:
MAYDAY is trying to start a Congressional calling campaign in order to put members of Congress on "notice" and get on the "right side" of reform. A discussion of this is taking place on the MAYDAY Reddit at http://www.reddit.com/r/MaydayPAC/comments/32pf6i/seeking_citizen_input_on_maydays_goals_in_2015/.
Can you organizations and others make suggestions for MAYDAY getting its Congressional calling campaign going?
Concerning grassroots action such as the calling campaign, I have asked the question of how important is it that there be a "social" aspect.
I gave as an example, the #RepDay15 of Represent.Us on Wednesday. Groups of people around the country got out with signs. The groups had a physical "social" aspect, which I think people like very much. The "socializing" was buttressed by sharing on Twitter. See https://twitter.com/search?q=%23RepDay15&src=tyah
Another example of the attraction of physical "socializing" seemed to me the NHRebellion walks.
I don't think the "social" dimension must be physical, in person "socializing" in order to attract grassroots participation, but I think MAYDAY should give much thought to how to create a "social" dimension to the Congressional calling campaign MAYDAY wants to carry out.
Can you organizations and others who have grassroots action experience.offer any ideas to MAYDAY for its Congressional calling campaign?
I hope you do.
Update 4/18
Yesterday, I sent the below tweets to organizations
Update 4/18
Yesterday, I sent the below tweets to organizations
Hey @takebackorg, help #maydaypac #maydayus with ideas for Cong'l calling campaign. #getmoneyout http://t.co/0jhP270wyC
— Rob Shattuck (@RobShattuckAL06) April 17, 2015
Hey @nhrebellion, help #maydaypac #maydayus with ideas for Cong'l calling campaign. #NHRebellion #getmoneyout http://t.co/0jhP270wyC
— Rob Shattuck (@RobShattuckAL06) April 17, 2015
Hey @StampStampede, help #maydaypac #maydayus with ideas for Cong'l calling campaign. #stampstampede #getmoneyout http://t.co/0jhP270wyC
— Rob Shattuck (@RobShattuckAL06) April 17, 2015
Hey @WolfPAChq , help #maydaypac #maydayus with ideas for Cong'l calling campaign. #wolfpac #GetMoneyOut http://t.co/0jhP270wyC
— Rob Shattuck (@RobShattuckAL06) April 17, 2015
Hey @MoveToAmend , help #maydaypac #maydayus with ideas for Cong'l calling campaign. #movetoamend http://t.co/0jhP270wyC
— Rob Shattuck (@RobShattuckAL06) April 17, 2015
Hey @RepresentDotUs, help #maydaypac #maydayus with ideas for Cong'l calling campaign. #representus #getmoneyout http://t.co/0jhP270wyC
— Rob Shattuck (@RobShattuckAL06) April 17, 2015
Thursday, April 16, 2015
A startling day for campaign finance reform
Yesterday (Tax Day) was a startling day for campaign finance reform.
For a prelude, Represent.Us had supporters around the country out with signs saying "Congress won't fix corruption. We will." An example is below. For more coverage, go to #RepDay15.
Then, Doug Hughes blew things away by flying a gyrocopter through protected airspace and puting it down on the lawn of the U.S. Capitol, to try to deliver 535 letters to 535 members of Congress in protest of "a corrupt government that sells out to the highest bidder." http://www.tampabay.com/news/politics/elections/ruskin-mailman-tries-flying-to-capitol-in-gyrocopter-to-deliver-campaign/2225584
For a prelude, Represent.Us had supporters around the country out with signs saying "Congress won't fix corruption. We will." An example is below. For more coverage, go to #RepDay15.
Then, Doug Hughes blew things away by flying a gyrocopter through protected airspace and puting it down on the lawn of the U.S. Capitol, to try to deliver 535 letters to 535 members of Congress in protest of "a corrupt government that sells out to the highest bidder." http://www.tampabay.com/news/politics/elections/ruskin-mailman-tries-flying-to-capitol-in-gyrocopter-to-deliver-campaign/2225584
Wednesday, April 15, 2015
Circling on #TweetToDefeatMoney
My last posting on this was Report on #TweetToDefeatMoney, posted on March 27th.
I have been particularly working on MAYDAY to get behind this, starting with this post on the MAYDAY Reddit: Proposed Tweet to Defeat Money Monster tweeting campaign.
There has been great grassroots interest, as evidenced by scores, if not hundreds, of retweets, favorites, follows, and replies I have received from grassroots I have tweeted to.
Please continue to try to help me, by pushing on your organization to support #TweetToDefeatMoney, whatever your preferred organization is, be it MAYDAY.US, MoveToAmend, Represent.Us, WolfPac, Stamp Stampede, NHRebellion, Take Back Our Republic or other organization.
Thank you.
I have been particularly working on MAYDAY to get behind this, starting with this post on the MAYDAY Reddit: Proposed Tweet to Defeat Money Monster tweeting campaign.
There has been great grassroots interest, as evidenced by scores, if not hundreds, of retweets, favorites, follows, and replies I have received from grassroots I have tweeted to.
Please continue to try to help me, by pushing on your organization to support #TweetToDefeatMoney, whatever your preferred organization is, be it MAYDAY.US, MoveToAmend, Represent.Us, WolfPac, Stamp Stampede, NHRebellion, Take Back Our Republic or other organization.
Thank you.
Would MAYDAY please clarify?
I am trying to understand the limitations MAYDAY is imposing on itself under the "coordination" rules.
Yesterday, on the MAYDAY Reddit, I posted a link to The limitations of MAYDAY. MAYDAY deleted my post, and I wish to understand why.
It would be helpful if MAYDAY would expressly state whether or not there is an absolute prohibition that no candidate may post anything on Reddit.
If there is not an absolute prohibition, would MAYDAY please state guidelines for what a candidate is allowed to post on Reddit.
If there is a prohibition that a candidate may not post on Reddit, would MAYDAY please state whether MAYDAY will take any steps to prevent the candidate from tweeting to MAYDAY followers on Twitter (i.e., will MAYDAY block a candidate from accessing MAYDAY's Twitter account page and its follower list)?
Will MAYDAY seek to regulate how candidates use the MAYDAY name, such as if a candidate says to the voters in the district that he or she will best advance MAYDAY's objectives? If MAYDAY will seek to regulate how the MAYDAY name is used, could MAYDAY please give an indication at this time about possible regulation that MAYDAY will attempt?
Could MAYDAY please post on the MAYDAY website guidance for candidates that answers some or all of the foregoing questions?
Thank you.
Yesterday, on the MAYDAY Reddit, I posted a link to The limitations of MAYDAY. MAYDAY deleted my post, and I wish to understand why.
It would be helpful if MAYDAY would expressly state whether or not there is an absolute prohibition that no candidate may post anything on Reddit.
If there is not an absolute prohibition, would MAYDAY please state guidelines for what a candidate is allowed to post on Reddit.
If there is a prohibition that a candidate may not post on Reddit, would MAYDAY please state whether MAYDAY will take any steps to prevent the candidate from tweeting to MAYDAY followers on Twitter (i.e., will MAYDAY block a candidate from accessing MAYDAY's Twitter account page and its follower list)?
Will MAYDAY seek to regulate how candidates use the MAYDAY name, such as if a candidate says to the voters in the district that he or she will best advance MAYDAY's objectives? If MAYDAY will seek to regulate how the MAYDAY name is used, could MAYDAY please give an indication at this time about possible regulation that MAYDAY will attempt?
Could MAYDAY please post on the MAYDAY website guidance for candidates that answers some or all of the foregoing questions?
Thank you.
Fresh Questions About "Coordination" Rules
I have discovered a campaign finance law blog More Soft Money Hard Law.
An April 3rd posting in the blog, entitled Fresh Questions About "Coordination" Rules, should be read for greater understanding of how hemmed in MAYDAY may be under the "coordination" rules in how MAYDAY is able to carry out its plan to elect a reform minded Congress by 2016.
Also, the complaint that was made to the FEC about MAYDAY is discussed at Cause For Complaint to FEC.
Copied and pasted below is the Fresh Questions About "Coordination" Rules blog entry.
An April 3rd posting in the blog, entitled Fresh Questions About "Coordination" Rules, should be read for greater understanding of how hemmed in MAYDAY may be under the "coordination" rules in how MAYDAY is able to carry out its plan to elect a reform minded Congress by 2016.
Also, the complaint that was made to the FEC about MAYDAY is discussed at Cause For Complaint to FEC.
Copied and pasted below is the Fresh Questions About "Coordination" Rules blog entry.
The Brennan Center regularly devotes space to a review of the literature on the money-in-politics debate, and this week, Benjamin Brickner discusses an insightful paper on “coordination” by Professor Michael Gilbert of the University of Virginia and Brian Barnes, a J.D. candidate there. The authors present the case that anti-coordination rules don’t operate to prevent corruption achieved through independent spending–and that they can’t, even if strengthened. There are too many ways around coordination restrictions: a spender can comply with the law, spending “independently” for a candidate, but still offer the politician value that can be “cashed in” later. If coordination rules do not deter corruption but do limit speech, then their constitutionality is thrown into question.
It is not difficult for an independent group to figure out what the politician may need and appreciate. Public sources of useful information are plentiful and these can be supplemented by private polling and other expert advice; and if there is a risk of missing the mark and timing or targeting an ad imperfectly, there remains value to be conveyed. As Gilbert and Barnes point out, this is a question only of the efficiency of the expenditure, and some ground can be made up by just spending more money. A politician can still be grateful for $75,000 of discounted benefit from an ad that cost $100,000. As Gilbert and Barnes frame the point, “[U]nless the law prohibits candidates from publicizing their platforms and strategies, and outsiders from paying attention, then outsiders will always have enough information to make expenditures that convey at least some value.”
And corrupt deals can be stuck without “coordinating” in violation of existing rules. Bargaining over a paid ad needs to be distinguished from making a corrupt deal that value of some kind will be provided in return for an official act. The politician need not know that payment will be in the form of an ad, and she does not have to request, control or directly influence the timing or content of an ad so long as she has confidence that ads eventually run will have this threshold value: “some value,” perhaps enhanced by the level of funding that is committed to it.
The tightening of coordination rules can’t solve this problem. Mr. Brickner seems to believe otherwise. But the example of one reform proposal, among the more aggressive, tends to support a skeptical view. It would compel a finding of “coordination” in the event that the candidate privately or publicly expresses appreciation for or approval of an ad. If constitutional—not a condition this proposal could easily satisfy—it still presents little problem for the value exchange described by Gilbert and Barnes. The well-advised candidate would simply say nothing about any ad, anywhere and at any time, and press questions could be answered with a simple “I don’t discuss these matters.” This is a key point made by Gilbert and Barnes: discussion of the ad is not necessary to the extraction of exchange of value in which the independent expenditure is the “pay-off”—the quid of the quid pro quo.
The problem here can be traced back to the beginning. Independent groups now stirring up controversy are not the ones the Court in Buckley had in mind: outfits springing up to voice voice concerns as they please, indifferent or insensitive to the candidate’s needs. Now we have highly professional groups finely tuned to those needs and savvy about satisfying them.
The first type of group envisioned by the Buckley Court might be seen as dedicated to expressing its own reasons for wishing a candidate elected or defeated. The second type, at the center of the “coordination” debate today, is more looking to speak as the candidate would on her own behalf. The conception of independence underlying these two cases are quite different. It is a difference between independence of advocacy and strategy, and independence understood as keeping a group from speaking too much like the candidate.
When reformers proposing tighter coordination rules speak of the requirement of “total independence,” the second type is the one they have in mind – – no close ties to the candidate, no sophisticated means of acquiring information about what broadcast appeals would be most consistent with her campaign’s strategic interests, no dedication to mimicking the candidate’s arguments or themes on the stump or on the air. The reform program is keep independent speech from becoming too helpfully like the candidate’s own. It is a dubious proposition and it has nothing to do with illegal coordination.
When the Court was doing the best it could, on the fly, in 1976, its conception of independence may have made some sense. As Gilbert and Barnes show, it makes little sense now.
Concern about the rise of Super PACs and their independent spending can be based on reasons other than the risk of corruption: the danger that they will weaken or eclipse the parties, or raise costs and other complications for candidates in running their campaigns, or worsen the ills as some perceive them of “negative campaigns,” and more. But “corruption” is not the problem, if the problem is one that rules to prevent “coordination” rules are expected to solve.
Tuesday, April 14, 2015
Can MAYDAY allow candidates to post?
I have been doing research on the question of whether MAYDAY can allow candidates to post on its website and Facebook pages.
As I said in the preceding entry, The limitations of MAYDAY, MAYDAY has not publicly articulated much about the limitations MAYDAY considers itself to be under by reason of the coordination rules. I said that my impression is that MAYDAY made a decision for 2014 that Congressional candidates would not be allowed to post on the MAYDAY website and Facebook pages, and that I did not know whether this decision was set in concrete for MAYDAY for 2016, and whether Congressional candidates will continue to be banned from posting on the MAYDAY website and Facebook pages.
Related to these matters, here is part of what I am able to piece together from Appendix D of the FEC Candidate Guide:
First, the "Content Prong" divides communications between "electioneering communications" and "public communications."
"Public communication" is defined as a communication made by means of:
• Any broadcast, cable or satellite communication;
• Newspaper;
• Magazine;
• Outdoor advertising facility;
• Mass mailing (more than 500 pieces of substantially similar mail within any 30-day period);
• Telephone bank (more than 500 substantially similar telephone calls within any 30-dayperiod);
• An advertisement placed for a fee on another person’s website; or
• Any other form of general public political advertising.1 100.26, 100.27 and 100.28.
There is a footnote that says:
1 The term general public political advertising does not include any Internet communication except for a communication placed for a fee on another person’s website.
If a candidate posts on the MAYDAY website or Facebook pages, it would not appear that a "public communication" is being made.
"Electioneering Communication" is defined as "any broadcast, cable or satellite communication that (1) refers to a clearly identified candidate for federal office; (2) is publicly distributed within certain time periods before an election and (3) is targeted to the relevant electorate.100.29. See Appendix D.
The periods of time in question are 30 days before a primary election and 60 days before a general election.
Even though there may be some safe harbors here that MAYDAY could avail itself of in allowing candidates to post, I can appreciate that MAYDAY could still choose to go for a blanket prohibition against allowing Congressional candidates to post.
If MAYDAY adopts such a blanket prohibition. there are significant questions for MAYDAY to address about candidates.
What will MAYDAY do if a a candidate wants to wave the MAYDAY banner to the effect of "I back MAYDAY, and if you back MAYDAY, you should support me."
What if a candidate in a state, say California, tries to start a group, trumpeting "We are the MAYDAY supporters of such and such Congressional district in California?"
Does MAYDAY consider the foregoing use of the MAYDAY name and of expenditures that MAYDAY has made to publicize the MAYDAY name as creating a risk of "coordination"?
I know these questions may be viewed by MAYDAY as not yet ripe, but they are ripe for me.
As I said in the preceding entry, The limitations of MAYDAY, MAYDAY has not publicly articulated much about the limitations MAYDAY considers itself to be under by reason of the coordination rules. I said that my impression is that MAYDAY made a decision for 2014 that Congressional candidates would not be allowed to post on the MAYDAY website and Facebook pages, and that I did not know whether this decision was set in concrete for MAYDAY for 2016, and whether Congressional candidates will continue to be banned from posting on the MAYDAY website and Facebook pages.
Related to these matters, here is part of what I am able to piece together from Appendix D of the FEC Candidate Guide:
First, the "Content Prong" divides communications between "electioneering communications" and "public communications."
"Public communication" is defined as a communication made by means of:
• Any broadcast, cable or satellite communication;
• Newspaper;
• Magazine;
• Outdoor advertising facility;
• Mass mailing (more than 500 pieces of substantially similar mail within any 30-day period);
• Telephone bank (more than 500 substantially similar telephone calls within any 30-dayperiod);
• An advertisement placed for a fee on another person’s website; or
• Any other form of general public political advertising.1 100.26, 100.27 and 100.28.
There is a footnote that says:
1 The term general public political advertising does not include any Internet communication except for a communication placed for a fee on another person’s website.
If a candidate posts on the MAYDAY website or Facebook pages, it would not appear that a "public communication" is being made.
"Electioneering Communication" is defined as "any broadcast, cable or satellite communication that (1) refers to a clearly identified candidate for federal office; (2) is publicly distributed within certain time periods before an election and (3) is targeted to the relevant electorate.100.29. See Appendix D.
The periods of time in question are 30 days before a primary election and 60 days before a general election.
Even though there may be some safe harbors here that MAYDAY could avail itself of in allowing candidates to post, I can appreciate that MAYDAY could still choose to go for a blanket prohibition against allowing Congressional candidates to post.
If MAYDAY adopts such a blanket prohibition. there are significant questions for MAYDAY to address about candidates.
What will MAYDAY do if a a candidate wants to wave the MAYDAY banner to the effect of "I back MAYDAY, and if you back MAYDAY, you should support me."
What if a candidate in a state, say California, tries to start a group, trumpeting "We are the MAYDAY supporters of such and such Congressional district in California?"
Does MAYDAY consider the foregoing use of the MAYDAY name and of expenditures that MAYDAY has made to publicize the MAYDAY name as creating a risk of "coordination"?
I know these questions may be viewed by MAYDAY as not yet ripe, but they are ripe for me.
The limitations of MAYDAY
This morning I posted on the MAYDAY Reddit a post with the title "Doing it the old fashioned way." The text of my post was:
Those "coordination" rules potentially impose significant limitations on how MAYDAY will be able to pursue its goal of electing a reform minded Congress by 2016.
MAYDAY supporters should be aware of those limitations so that they know how MAYDAY is limited in what MAYDAY does, and so supporters can make decisions about whether there are things they (or others) can do (which MAYDAY believes it cannot do) and decide whether they should do such things.
MAYDAY has not publicly articulated much about the limitations MAYDAY considers itself to be under by reason of the coordination rules.
I believe MAYDAY made a decision for 2014 that Congressional candidates would not be allowed to post on the MAYDAY website and Facebook pages.
I do not know whether this decision is set in concrete for MAYDAY for 2016, and whether Congressional candidates will continue to be banned from posting on the MAYDAY website and Facebook pages.
Such a ban on Congressional candidates would be detrimental for MAYDAY's plan. It will curtail the ability of Congressional candidates to inform MAYDAY supporters about the candidates' positions on campaign finance reform and curtail engagement by Congressional candidates with MAYDAY supporters about the same. The ban will limit Congressional candidates who back MAYDAY in learning about one another and in having discussions about their respective campaigns and their tactics and strategies.
One of the reasons I started this blog in 2014 was to create an alternative venue for the foregoing activities to take place if the activities could not take place on MAYDAY venues. See the entry Engaging with Congressional candidates.
Any venue set up as an alternative to MAYDAY's venues would need to be evaluated under the Federal campaign finance law. Below I have indicated some provisions of Federal campaign finance law, which are described in this FEC Candidate Guide. Please note the favored treatment that is given to Internet activity. I think an alternative venue to MAYDAY's venues is a realistic possibility.
Also, consider the posting that MAYDAY apparently believed it needed to delete by reason of the "coordination rules. I am about the only person posting on the MAYDAY Reddit who is strenuously urging messaging to persons outside of MAYDAY to tell them about MAYDAY and telling about the messaging I have been doing and the results I have been getting.
I don't know what is going to be in the platform MAYDAY announces on May 1st to support the biggest citizen lobbying campaign that MAYDAY possibly can, and maybe there will be a lot in that platform. Thus far, MAYDAY has chosen to make no comment or give any encouragement regarding ideas that I and others have put forth on Reddit and elsewhere.
All of what I am doing is in the public domain, and MAYDAY is aware of it is in the public domain. Instead of just deleting things that MAYDAY thinks may violate the coordination rules, MAYDAY should be proactive in searching out ideas, and writing up the ideas itself on its website and Facebook pages.
CANDIDATE GUIDE
The Glossary in Appendix H of the Guide has these definitions to consider.
Candidate – An individual seeking nomination
for election, or election, to federal office becomes
a candidate when he or she (or agents
acting on his or her behalf) raise contributions
that exceed $5,000 or make expenditures that
exceed $5,000.
Contribution – A gift, subscription, loan,
advance or deposit of money or anything of
value given to influence a federal election; or
the payment by any person of compensation
for the personal services of another person if
those services are rendered without charge
to a political committee for any purpose. 100.52(a) and 100.54. See Chapter 3, “Understanding
Contributions.”
Coordinated Communication – A communication
that satisfies a three pronged test:
• The communication must be paid for by a
person other than a federal candidate, authorized
committee, or a political party committee,
or any agents of the aforementioned
entities with whom the communication is
coordinated. (See, “Party Coordinated Communication,”
below);
• One or more of the five content standards
set forth in 109.21(c) must be satisfied; and
• One or more of the five conduct standards
set forth in 109.21(d) must be satisfied.
• A payment for a communication satisfying all
three prongs is an in-kind contribution to the
candidate or political party committee with
which it was coordinated. 109.21. See Appendix
D, Section 2.
Electioneering Communication – Any
broadcast, cable or satellite communication
that (1) refers to a clearly identified candidate
for federal office; (2) is publicly distributed
within certain time periods before an election
and (3) is targeted to the relevant electorate.
100.29. See Appendix D.
Expenditure – A purchase, payment, distribution,
loan, advance, deposit, or gift of money
or anything of value made for the purpose of
influencing a federal election. A written agreement
to make an expenditure is also considered
an expenditure. 100.111 and 100.112. See
Chapter 8.
Independent Expenditure – An expenditure
for a communication that expressly advocates
the election or defeat of a clearly identified
candidate and that is not made in cooperation,
consultation or concert with, or at the request
or suggestion of, any candidate, or his or her
authorized committees or agents, or a political
party committee or its agents. 100.16. See
Appendix D.
Mass Mailing – A mailing by U.S. mail or facsimile
of more than 500 pieces of mail matter
of an identical or substantially similar nature
within any 30-day period. This does not include
electronic mail or other Internet communications.
100.27. See Public Communication.
Public Communication – A communication
by means of any broadcast, cable or satellite
communication, newspaper, magazine, outdoor
advertising facility, mass mailing or telephone
bank to the general public, or any other form
of general public political advertising. The term
general public political advertising does not include
communications made over the Internet,
except for communications placed for a fee on
another person’s website. 100.26, 100.27 (definition
of mass mailing) and 100.28 (definition of
telephone bank).
There are these substantive provisions in the Guide:
Definition
Goods or services offered free or at less than
the usual charge result in an in-kind contribution.
Similarly, when a person pays for services on
the committee’s behalf, the payment is an in-kind
contribution. 100.52(d)(1) and 100.111(e)(1). An
expenditure made by any person in cooperation,
consultation or concert with, or at the request or
suggestion of, a candidate’s campaign is also considered
an in-kind contribution to the candidate.
109.20. See Appendix D, “Communications.”
Coordinated Communications
If a committee, group or individual pays for a communication
that is coordinated with a campaign or
a candidate, the communication may result in an
in-kind contribution to the campaign committee.
For more information on determining whether a
communication is coordinated, see Appendix D.
Personal Services
An individual may volunteer personal services to a
campaign without making a contribution as long as
the individual is not compensated by anyone for the
services. 100.74. Volunteer activity is not reportable.
Internet Volunteer Activity
General Exception
An uncompensated individual or group of uncompensated
individuals may engage in certain
voluntary Internet activities for the purpose of
influencing a federal election without restriction.
These exempted Internet activities would not result
in a contribution or an expenditure under the Act
and would not trigger any registration or reporting
requirements with the FEC. This exemption applies
to individuals acting with or without the knowledge
or consent of a campaign or a political party
committee. 100.94 and 100.155. Exempted Internet
activities include, but are not limited to, sending or
forwarding electronic mail, providing a hyperlink to
a website, creating, maintaining or hosting a website
and paying a nominal fee for the use of a website.
11. INDEPENDENT EXPENDITURES
An independent expenditure is an expenditure
for a communication that expressly advocates the
election or defeat of a clearly identified candidate
and which is not made in coordination with any
candidate or his or her campaign or political party.
100.16, 109.21 and 109.37. Independent expenditures
are not subject to any limits but may be
subject to reporting requirements. (The campaign
of a candidate benefiting from an independent expenditure
has no reporting obligation.) See Citizens
United v. FEC and AOs 2010-11 and 2010-09.
Appendix D provides detailed information on independent
expenditures. The appendix may be reproduced
and distributed by a campaign to anyone who
requests FEC guidelines on independent spending.
Campaign staff should pay special attention to the
section “Coordinated Communications” which explains
when the independence of an expenditure is
compromised through contact with a campaign and
thus results in an in-kind contribution, subject to
contribution limits, to the campaign. If a corporation
or labor organization funds the coordinated expenditure,
it results in a prohibited contribution
limitations,
source prohibitions and reporting. To avoid
receiving an illegal excessive or prohibited contribution,
campaigns should avoid certain interactions
with those making electioneering communications.
See 109.21(d) and Appendix D, Section 2 for more
information.
12. ELECTIONEERING
COMMUNICATIONS
Any broadcast, cable or satellite communication
that is publicly distributed within 30 days of a
primary or 60 days of a general election, refers to
a clearly identified federal candidate and is targeted
to the relevant electorate is an electioneering communication.
100.29(a).
If a registered political committee makes an electioneering
communication, it must report it as it
reports an expenditure or independent expenditure
under the Act. 104.20(b).
Coordination of Electioneering
Communications
If a communication is considered coordinated
under the Commission’s three-part test, it results in
limitations,
source prohibitions and reporting. To avoid
receiving an illegal excessive or prohibited contribution,
campaigns should avoid certain interactions
with those making electioneering communications.
See 109.21(d) and Appendix D, Section 2 for more
information.
2. DISCLAIMERS
Any public communication made by a political committee,
even those that do not contain a solicitation
or express advocacy, must include a disclaimer. 52
U.S.C. §30120(a); 110.11(a)(1).
Public Communications
Public communications include electioneering communications
and any other form of general public
political advertisement, including communications
made using the following media:
• Broadcast, cable or satellite;
• Newspaper or magazine;
• Outdoor advertising facility;
• Mass mailing (more than 500 substantially
similar mailings within 30 days);
• Phone bank (more than 500 substantially
similar calls within 30 days); and
• Communications placed for a fee on another
person’s website.
100.26, 100.27 and 100.28.
The following communications are not considered
to be public communications, but still require a
disclaimer:
• Electronic mail: More than 500 substantially
similar communications sent by a politic
similar communications sent by a political
committee; and
• Web sites of political committees.
110.11(a)(1).
Appendix D
Communications
NOTE: This section discusses communications that
are not made by the campaign, but that are made by
others in support of, or opposition to, a candidate.
Candidates and their campaigns may reproduce and
distribute this appendix to anyone who requests
FEC guidelines on such communications. Citations
refer to Federal Election Commission regulations,
contained in Title 11 of the Code of Federal Regulations
(11 CFR). Advisory opinions (AOs) issued by
the Commission are cited as well. If you have any
questions after reading this appendix, please call the
Commission: 800/424-9530 (toll free) or 202/694-
1100.
1. PUBLIC COMMUNICATIONS
It is important to understand how the Act and FEC
regulations define “public communication” because
many of the rules regarding political communications
depend upon whether the communication in
question is a public communication.
Definition
A public communication is a communication made
by means of:
• Any broadcast, cable or satellite communication;
• Newspaper;
• Magazine;
• Outdoor advertising facility;
• Mass mailing (more than 500 pieces of
substantially similar mail within any 30-day
period);
• Telephone bank (more than 500 substantially
similar telephone calls within any 30-day
period);
• An advertisement placed for a fee on another
person’s website; or
• Any other form of general public political
advertising.1 100.26, 100.27 and 100.28.
1 The term general public political advertising does not include
any Internet communication except for a communication
2. COORDINATED
COMMUNICATIONS
When a committee, group or individual pays for a
communication that is coordinated with a campaign
or a candidate, the communication is either an inkind
contribution or, in some limited cases, a coordinated
party expenditure by a party committee.
Coordination Defined
Coordinated means made in cooperation, consultation
or concert with, or at the request or suggestion
of, a candidate, a candidate’s authorized
committee, or their agents, or a political party
committee or its agents.2 109.20.
Determining Coordination
FEC regulations provide for a three-pronged test to
determine whether a communication is coordinated.
A communication must satisfy all three prongs
of the test to be considered a coordinated communication
(and as a result, count against contribution
limits). 109.21(a).
The three prongs of the test consider:
• The source of payment (payment prong);
• The subject matter of the communication
(content prong); and
• The interaction between the person paying
for the communication and the candidate or
political party committee (conduct prong).
When the payment prong, the content prong and
the conduct prong are all satisfied, then the communication
is a coordinated communication and
results in an in-kind contribution. (See Chapter 13,
Section 10 for instructions on how to report such a
contribution.)
Payment Prong
The payment prong is satisfied when a coordinated
communication is paid for, in whole or in part, by
a person other than the candidate, an authorized
committee or a political party committee with
whom the communication is coordinated. 109.21(a)
I would be interested in your comments on "Doing it the old fashioned way," as described in this blog entry http://maydaysupporters.blogspot.com/2015/04/doing-it-old-fashioned-way.html.MAYDAY deleted my posting. I was not provided with an explanation of the deletion. Until I am informed otherwise, I am assuming the deletion was made by reason of the "coordination" rules under Federal campaign finance law as applicable to "independent expenditures" by Super PACS.
Those "coordination" rules potentially impose significant limitations on how MAYDAY will be able to pursue its goal of electing a reform minded Congress by 2016.
MAYDAY supporters should be aware of those limitations so that they know how MAYDAY is limited in what MAYDAY does, and so supporters can make decisions about whether there are things they (or others) can do (which MAYDAY believes it cannot do) and decide whether they should do such things.
MAYDAY has not publicly articulated much about the limitations MAYDAY considers itself to be under by reason of the coordination rules.
I believe MAYDAY made a decision for 2014 that Congressional candidates would not be allowed to post on the MAYDAY website and Facebook pages.
I do not know whether this decision is set in concrete for MAYDAY for 2016, and whether Congressional candidates will continue to be banned from posting on the MAYDAY website and Facebook pages.
Such a ban on Congressional candidates would be detrimental for MAYDAY's plan. It will curtail the ability of Congressional candidates to inform MAYDAY supporters about the candidates' positions on campaign finance reform and curtail engagement by Congressional candidates with MAYDAY supporters about the same. The ban will limit Congressional candidates who back MAYDAY in learning about one another and in having discussions about their respective campaigns and their tactics and strategies.
One of the reasons I started this blog in 2014 was to create an alternative venue for the foregoing activities to take place if the activities could not take place on MAYDAY venues. See the entry Engaging with Congressional candidates.
Any venue set up as an alternative to MAYDAY's venues would need to be evaluated under the Federal campaign finance law. Below I have indicated some provisions of Federal campaign finance law, which are described in this FEC Candidate Guide. Please note the favored treatment that is given to Internet activity. I think an alternative venue to MAYDAY's venues is a realistic possibility.
Also, consider the posting that MAYDAY apparently believed it needed to delete by reason of the "coordination rules. I am about the only person posting on the MAYDAY Reddit who is strenuously urging messaging to persons outside of MAYDAY to tell them about MAYDAY and telling about the messaging I have been doing and the results I have been getting.
I don't know what is going to be in the platform MAYDAY announces on May 1st to support the biggest citizen lobbying campaign that MAYDAY possibly can, and maybe there will be a lot in that platform. Thus far, MAYDAY has chosen to make no comment or give any encouragement regarding ideas that I and others have put forth on Reddit and elsewhere.
All of what I am doing is in the public domain, and MAYDAY is aware of it is in the public domain. Instead of just deleting things that MAYDAY thinks may violate the coordination rules, MAYDAY should be proactive in searching out ideas, and writing up the ideas itself on its website and Facebook pages.
CANDIDATE GUIDE
The Glossary in Appendix H of the Guide has these definitions to consider.
Candidate – An individual seeking nomination
for election, or election, to federal office becomes
a candidate when he or she (or agents
acting on his or her behalf) raise contributions
that exceed $5,000 or make expenditures that
exceed $5,000.
Contribution – A gift, subscription, loan,
advance or deposit of money or anything of
value given to influence a federal election; or
the payment by any person of compensation
for the personal services of another person if
those services are rendered without charge
to a political committee for any purpose. 100.52(a) and 100.54. See Chapter 3, “Understanding
Contributions.”
Coordinated Communication – A communication
that satisfies a three pronged test:
• The communication must be paid for by a
person other than a federal candidate, authorized
committee, or a political party committee,
or any agents of the aforementioned
entities with whom the communication is
coordinated. (See, “Party Coordinated Communication,”
below);
• One or more of the five content standards
set forth in 109.21(c) must be satisfied; and
• One or more of the five conduct standards
set forth in 109.21(d) must be satisfied.
• A payment for a communication satisfying all
three prongs is an in-kind contribution to the
candidate or political party committee with
which it was coordinated. 109.21. See Appendix
D, Section 2.
Electioneering Communication – Any
broadcast, cable or satellite communication
that (1) refers to a clearly identified candidate
for federal office; (2) is publicly distributed
within certain time periods before an election
and (3) is targeted to the relevant electorate.
100.29. See Appendix D.
Expenditure – A purchase, payment, distribution,
loan, advance, deposit, or gift of money
or anything of value made for the purpose of
influencing a federal election. A written agreement
to make an expenditure is also considered
an expenditure. 100.111 and 100.112. See
Chapter 8.
Independent Expenditure – An expenditure
for a communication that expressly advocates
the election or defeat of a clearly identified
candidate and that is not made in cooperation,
consultation or concert with, or at the request
or suggestion of, any candidate, or his or her
authorized committees or agents, or a political
party committee or its agents. 100.16. See
Appendix D.
Mass Mailing – A mailing by U.S. mail or facsimile
of more than 500 pieces of mail matter
of an identical or substantially similar nature
within any 30-day period. This does not include
electronic mail or other Internet communications.
100.27. See Public Communication.
Public Communication – A communication
by means of any broadcast, cable or satellite
communication, newspaper, magazine, outdoor
advertising facility, mass mailing or telephone
bank to the general public, or any other form
of general public political advertising. The term
general public political advertising does not include
communications made over the Internet,
except for communications placed for a fee on
another person’s website. 100.26, 100.27 (definition
of mass mailing) and 100.28 (definition of
telephone bank).
There are these substantive provisions in the Guide:
Definition
Goods or services offered free or at less than
the usual charge result in an in-kind contribution.
Similarly, when a person pays for services on
the committee’s behalf, the payment is an in-kind
contribution. 100.52(d)(1) and 100.111(e)(1). An
expenditure made by any person in cooperation,
consultation or concert with, or at the request or
suggestion of, a candidate’s campaign is also considered
an in-kind contribution to the candidate.
109.20. See Appendix D, “Communications.”
Coordinated Communications
If a committee, group or individual pays for a communication
that is coordinated with a campaign or
a candidate, the communication may result in an
in-kind contribution to the campaign committee.
For more information on determining whether a
communication is coordinated, see Appendix D.
Personal Services
An individual may volunteer personal services to a
campaign without making a contribution as long as
the individual is not compensated by anyone for the
services. 100.74. Volunteer activity is not reportable.
Internet Volunteer Activity
General Exception
An uncompensated individual or group of uncompensated
individuals may engage in certain
voluntary Internet activities for the purpose of
influencing a federal election without restriction.
These exempted Internet activities would not result
in a contribution or an expenditure under the Act
and would not trigger any registration or reporting
requirements with the FEC. This exemption applies
to individuals acting with or without the knowledge
or consent of a campaign or a political party
committee. 100.94 and 100.155. Exempted Internet
activities include, but are not limited to, sending or
forwarding electronic mail, providing a hyperlink to
a website, creating, maintaining or hosting a website
and paying a nominal fee for the use of a website.
11. INDEPENDENT EXPENDITURES
An independent expenditure is an expenditure
for a communication that expressly advocates the
election or defeat of a clearly identified candidate
and which is not made in coordination with any
candidate or his or her campaign or political party.
100.16, 109.21 and 109.37. Independent expenditures
are not subject to any limits but may be
subject to reporting requirements. (The campaign
of a candidate benefiting from an independent expenditure
has no reporting obligation.) See Citizens
United v. FEC and AOs 2010-11 and 2010-09.
Appendix D provides detailed information on independent
expenditures. The appendix may be reproduced
and distributed by a campaign to anyone who
requests FEC guidelines on independent spending.
Campaign staff should pay special attention to the
section “Coordinated Communications” which explains
when the independence of an expenditure is
compromised through contact with a campaign and
thus results in an in-kind contribution, subject to
contribution limits, to the campaign. If a corporation
or labor organization funds the coordinated expenditure,
it results in a prohibited contribution
limitations,
source prohibitions and reporting. To avoid
receiving an illegal excessive or prohibited contribution,
campaigns should avoid certain interactions
with those making electioneering communications.
See 109.21(d) and Appendix D, Section 2 for more
information.
12. ELECTIONEERING
COMMUNICATIONS
Any broadcast, cable or satellite communication
that is publicly distributed within 30 days of a
primary or 60 days of a general election, refers to
a clearly identified federal candidate and is targeted
to the relevant electorate is an electioneering communication.
100.29(a).
If a registered political committee makes an electioneering
communication, it must report it as it
reports an expenditure or independent expenditure
under the Act. 104.20(b).
Coordination of Electioneering
Communications
If a communication is considered coordinated
under the Commission’s three-part test, it results in
limitations,
source prohibitions and reporting. To avoid
receiving an illegal excessive or prohibited contribution,
campaigns should avoid certain interactions
with those making electioneering communications.
See 109.21(d) and Appendix D, Section 2 for more
information.
2. DISCLAIMERS
Any public communication made by a political committee,
even those that do not contain a solicitation
or express advocacy, must include a disclaimer. 52
U.S.C. §30120(a); 110.11(a)(1).
Public Communications
Public communications include electioneering communications
and any other form of general public
political advertisement, including communications
made using the following media:
• Broadcast, cable or satellite;
• Newspaper or magazine;
• Outdoor advertising facility;
• Mass mailing (more than 500 substantially
similar mailings within 30 days);
• Phone bank (more than 500 substantially
similar calls within 30 days); and
• Communications placed for a fee on another
person’s website.
100.26, 100.27 and 100.28.
The following communications are not considered
to be public communications, but still require a
disclaimer:
• Electronic mail: More than 500 substantially
similar communications sent by a politic
similar communications sent by a political
committee; and
• Web sites of political committees.
110.11(a)(1).
Appendix D
Communications
NOTE: This section discusses communications that
are not made by the campaign, but that are made by
others in support of, or opposition to, a candidate.
Candidates and their campaigns may reproduce and
distribute this appendix to anyone who requests
FEC guidelines on such communications. Citations
refer to Federal Election Commission regulations,
contained in Title 11 of the Code of Federal Regulations
(11 CFR). Advisory opinions (AOs) issued by
the Commission are cited as well. If you have any
questions after reading this appendix, please call the
Commission: 800/424-9530 (toll free) or 202/694-
1100.
1. PUBLIC COMMUNICATIONS
It is important to understand how the Act and FEC
regulations define “public communication” because
many of the rules regarding political communications
depend upon whether the communication in
question is a public communication.
Definition
A public communication is a communication made
by means of:
• Any broadcast, cable or satellite communication;
• Newspaper;
• Magazine;
• Outdoor advertising facility;
• Mass mailing (more than 500 pieces of
substantially similar mail within any 30-day
period);
• Telephone bank (more than 500 substantially
similar telephone calls within any 30-day
period);
• An advertisement placed for a fee on another
person’s website; or
• Any other form of general public political
advertising.1 100.26, 100.27 and 100.28.
1 The term general public political advertising does not include
any Internet communication except for a communication
2. COORDINATED
COMMUNICATIONS
When a committee, group or individual pays for a
communication that is coordinated with a campaign
or a candidate, the communication is either an inkind
contribution or, in some limited cases, a coordinated
party expenditure by a party committee.
Coordination Defined
Coordinated means made in cooperation, consultation
or concert with, or at the request or suggestion
of, a candidate, a candidate’s authorized
committee, or their agents, or a political party
committee or its agents.2 109.20.
Determining Coordination
FEC regulations provide for a three-pronged test to
determine whether a communication is coordinated.
A communication must satisfy all three prongs
of the test to be considered a coordinated communication
(and as a result, count against contribution
limits). 109.21(a).
The three prongs of the test consider:
• The source of payment (payment prong);
• The subject matter of the communication
(content prong); and
• The interaction between the person paying
for the communication and the candidate or
political party committee (conduct prong).
When the payment prong, the content prong and
the conduct prong are all satisfied, then the communication
is a coordinated communication and
results in an in-kind contribution. (See Chapter 13,
Section 10 for instructions on how to report such a
contribution.)
Payment Prong
The payment prong is satisfied when a coordinated
communication is paid for, in whole or in part, by
a person other than the candidate, an authorized
committee or a political party committee with
whom the communication is coordinated. 109.21(a)
Doing it the old fashioned way
Yesterday I tweeted in Alabama this message and link:
I got 45 page views of the link, and had the following email interchanges ensue:
What is the Alabama Congressional delegation doing to defeat the Washington machine? http://al6thcongdist-ihaveuntiljan13.blogspot.com/2015/04/who-in-al-wants-to-defeat-washington.htmlI considered several possible follower lists to tweet to and selected the follower list for @MadisonCoDems. There were 126 followers shown. I was selective in tweeting to individuals with an Alabama geographic location.
I got 45 page views of the link, and had the following email interchanges ensue:
@Crumpton_US_Sen Please consider whether @MAYDAYUS is for you. https://t.co/WiZiWYjrlO
— Rob Shattuck (@RobShattuckAL06) April 14, 2015@MorteDeMocknbrd Can you get with MAYDAY? https://t.co/WiZiWYjrlO
— Rob Shattuck (@RobShattuckAL06) April 13, 2015@konoboe Do you expect to enjoy the Presidential War for the next 18 months? And rest of America will enjoy with you? http://t.co/Sot44MbG1h
— Rob Shattuck (@RobShattuckAL06) April 13, 2015@konoboe Why don't you contact MAYDAY? https://t.co/WiZiWYjrlO
— Rob Shattuck (@RobShattuckAL06) April 13, 2015Wednesday, April 8, 2015
"Defeat the Washington machine"
Rand Paul has handed out the campaign slogan: "Defeat the Washington machine. Unleash the American dream." See campaign poster at Who in AL wants to defeat the Washington machine?.
MAYDAY is advancing with its bipartisan effort. "To prove that reform is possible, we need to close the gap on a majority in Congress — both Republicans and Democrats — committed to reforming the system of corruption in Washington, D.C., by changing the way campaigns are funded."
On its Twitter page @MAYDAYUS is tweeting to numerous Republican and Democratic members of Congress, soliciting them as allies.
The bipartisan nature of the effort is showing in the news: See USNews: A Case for Reform; Concord Monitor, "My Turn: A remedy for bipartisan political corruption", by Republican Jim Rubens.
Following this path, I am using Rand Paul and "Defeat the Washington machine" in Alabama.
I have sent the tweets to the Alabama legislative delegation in Washington that are appended below.
What do you think of how I am using Rand Paul and "Defeat the Washington machine" in Alabama.
Will you join me and start using Rand Paul and "Defeat the Washington machine" in your state and Congressional district?
Please put your comments on MAYDAY Reddit, where I am posting a link to this.
MAYDAY is advancing with its bipartisan effort. "To prove that reform is possible, we need to close the gap on a majority in Congress — both Republicans and Democrats — committed to reforming the system of corruption in Washington, D.C., by changing the way campaigns are funded."
On its Twitter page @MAYDAYUS is tweeting to numerous Republican and Democratic members of Congress, soliciting them as allies.
The bipartisan nature of the effort is showing in the news: See USNews: A Case for Reform; Concord Monitor, "My Turn: A remedy for bipartisan political corruption", by Republican Jim Rubens.
Following this path, I am using Rand Paul and "Defeat the Washington machine" in Alabama.
I have sent the tweets to the Alabama legislative delegation in Washington that are appended below.
What do you think of how I am using Rand Paul and "Defeat the Washington machine" in Alabama.
Will you join me and start using Rand Paul and "Defeat the Washington machine" in your state and Congressional district?
Please put your comments on MAYDAY Reddit, where I am posting a link to this.
What is @SenShelby doing to defeat the Washington machine? …http://t.co/UEP0wtsS6A …@MAYDAYUS
— Rob Shattuck (@RobShattuckAL06) April 8, 2015
What is @SenatorSessions doing to defeat the Washington machine? …http://t.co/UEP0wtsS6A …@MAYDAYUS
— Rob Shattuck (@RobShattuckAL06) April 8, 2015
What is @RepTerriSewell doing to defeat the Washington machine? …http://t.co/UEP0wtsS6A …@MAYDAYUS
— Rob Shattuck (@RobShattuckAL06) April 8, 2015
What is @USRepGaryPalmer doing to defeat the Washington machine? …http://t.co/UEP0wtsS6A …@MAYDAYUS
— Rob Shattuck (@RobShattuckAL06) April 8, 2015
What is @RepMoBrooks doing to defeat the Washington machine? …http://t.co/UEP0wtsS6A …@MAYDAYUS
— Rob Shattuck (@RobShattuckAL06) April 8, 2015
What is Rep. @Robert_Aderholt doing to defeat the Washington machine? …http://t.co/UEP0wtsS6A …@MAYDAYUS
— Rob Shattuck (@RobShattuckAL06) April 8, 2015
What is @RepMikeRogersAL doing to defeat the Washington machine? …http://t.co/UEP0wtsS6A …@MAYDAYUS
— Rob Shattuck (@RobShattuckAL06) April 8, 2015
What is @RepMarthaRoby doing to defeat the Washington machine? …http://t.co/UEP0wtsS6A …@MAYDAYUS
— Rob Shattuck (@RobShattuckAL06) April 8, 2015
What is Rep. @BradleyByrne doing to defeat the Washington machine? …http://t.co/UEP0wtsS6A …@MAYDAYUS
— Rob Shattuck (@RobShattuckAL06) April 8, 2015
Saturday, April 4, 2015
Organizing "silence on airwaves" proposal
@bearskey has posted on MAYDAY Reddit the following proposal:
My main suggestion for the proposal is for it to be organized in its various facets, including organized in publicizing the proposal, organized in its implementation, and, once it starts to get implemented, organized in publicizing youtube videos, etc., which are created under the proposal.
A starting point for publicizing the proposal could be for MAYDAY to post the proposal on its website and on its FB pages and to tweet to MAYDAY's followers a link to the proposal.
I am trying to get going #TweetToDefeatMoney tweeting campaigns. I would be pleased to include tweets and links for publicizing the "silence on the airwaves" proposal. The tweeting campaigns require people willing to tweet. I am willing to tweet and have been tweeting, but the campaigns will only work if others join in and tweet as well.
If anyone is interested in joining in to tweet to publicize the "silence on the airwaves" proposal, please contact me.
Please click on the above link and read the proposal.
My main suggestion for the proposal is for it to be organized in its various facets, including organized in publicizing the proposal, organized in its implementation, and, once it starts to get implemented, organized in publicizing youtube videos, etc., which are created under the proposal.
A starting point for publicizing the proposal could be for MAYDAY to post the proposal on its website and on its FB pages and to tweet to MAYDAY's followers a link to the proposal.
I am trying to get going #TweetToDefeatMoney tweeting campaigns. I would be pleased to include tweets and links for publicizing the "silence on the airwaves" proposal. The tweeting campaigns require people willing to tweet. I am willing to tweet and have been tweeting, but the campaigns will only work if others join in and tweet as well.
If anyone is interested in joining in to tweet to publicize the "silence on the airwaves" proposal, please contact me.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)