Wednesday, February 26, 2014

Senator Shelby's response to open letter

A staff member at Senator Shelby's office in Washington DC called me and made a telephonic response to me to the  "open letter" to the Alabama legislative delegation in Washington that I had transmitted to Senator Shelby via his U.S. Senate website contact form, as described in the entry  Open letter to Alabama delegation in Washington.

This entry describes the telephonic response of Senator Shelby's office.

To do this calls for quoting what my "open letter" asked.  My "open letter" said:

My campaign platform is that I think that, in Washington DC, there is NOT government of the people by the people, and for the people. I further think that the causes of that condition are also causes of Congress being dysfunctional and not being able to do its job properly for the American people.  I think this should have primacy and urgency for the American people, because, until these conditions are corrected, there will continue to be great failures to act by Congress and/or great errors in actions that are taken by Congress. A fuller statement of my platform can be found here.
I am doing my best to instigate debate about my platform among the 6th Congressional district candidates.
The alleged conditions that form the basis of my platform, if they exist, affect voters everywhere in the country, and not just in the 6th Congressional district. 
Also, as I discuss in the above linked statement of my platform, incumbent lawmakers who have Washington experience are the most knowledgeable about critical matters that are the basis of my platform.
I do not want to waste the time of the other 6th district candidates and of voters in the district if my platform does not have substantial validity in fact.
If the collective wisdom of the Alabama legislative delegation in Washington is that my platform does not have substantial validity in fact, and that voters in the 6th Congressional district need not have significant concern about what I am trying to put forth in my platform, being advised about that could be  helpful for the conduct of the election campaign in the 6th district by myself and the other candidates.
Accordingly, your views about my platform are respectfully solicited for consideration by the 6th district candidates (including myself) and voters.
The staff member from Senator Shelby's office said that Senator Shelby did not (or could not) endorse candidates, that Senator Shelby believed in following and upholding the Constitution, and that Senator Shelby always voted for what was best for Alabama. From the telephonic response I got, I could not discern whether Senator Shelby thought there was or was not substantial validity to foregoing contentions my platform makes or whether he thought the candidates and voters in the 6th Congressional district should or should not spend time debating my contentions.  In the conversation, I basically read the first four paragraphs quoted above, including incumbent lawmakers having superior knowledge about critical matters that are the basis of my platform.  The staff member did not refer to the matter of Senator Shelby having (or not having) superior knowledge.

[To follow up on Senator Shelby's above response, I have sent the below email to the other 6th Congressional district candidates.]

From: Rob Shattuck <rdshattuck@gmail.com>
Date: Thu, Feb 27, 2014 at 9:02 AM
Subject: Senator Shelby's response to open letter
To: campaign@pauldemarco.org, campaign@drmathisforcongress.com, will@votewillforcongress.com, garyp <garyp@alabamapolicy.org>, tomv@tomisforyou.com
Cc: "Mountz, John" <JohnMountz@clearchannel.com>

Dear Fellow 6th Congressional District Candidates (except Scott Beason, who has not provided me an email address):

Senator Shelby's Washington office called me and provided me a telelphonic response to my "open letter" to the Alabama legislative delegation in Washington. I have memorialized Senator Shelby's response in this blog entry Senator Shelby's response to open letter.

Senator Shelby's response to the open letter, it seems to me, provides no help in deciding whether my campaign platform has substantial validity for 6th district voters and whether debate about my campaign platform should or should not be considered important by the candidates and voters in the 6th district.

It remains to be seen whether Senator Sessions or Representative Bachus will respond and help the 6th district candidates and voters in trying to decide whether my campaign platform is important to debate.

Our lawmakers in Washington have the greatest knowledge and understanding about how the political system and Congress work in Washington, but if they are not forthcoming, the 6th district candidates and voters will need to try to understand and decide on their own, as best they can.

I am continuing to develop in my blog my diagnosis and explication of why there is not government "of, by and for" the people in Washington and why Congress is dysfunctional and unable to do its job properly for the American people.

I continue to urge that this should have primacy, because, until these conditions are improved, a dsyfunctional Congress will continue impaired and unable to act on good ideas for addressing the country's pressing problems. The country does not lack for good ideas, including good ideas that some of you began to present at the two candidate events that have taken place thus far. The problem is not lack of ideas, but rather a dysfunctional Congress.

"Dysfunctionality" of Congress is not a brand new thing. Congress has been failing to do its job properly for the American people for more than a decade, and the failure is getting worse. In the vernacular, "cans" have been "kicked down the road" too long (i.e., Congress has failed to do its job properly to proactively manage pressing problems confronting the country), and there comes a point of abrupt and shocking externally driven developments (e.g., the rest of the world becoming unwilling to buy U.S. debt except at sky high interest rates, and the Federal budget becoming an ultimate nightmare), that largely dictate "solutions," and "management" of the problems is no longer in the hands of Congress.

I continue to press the 6th district candidates to react to my campaign platform. Thus far, there seems to be only silence on your part. If I am overlooking something in your campaign that I can put on my blog as your view or position, please let me know.

I have been strenuously exerting myself to publicize my platform to 6th district voters and will continue to do so. I hope you will express yourself at some point for the benefit of the voters.

Thank you.

Sincerely,
Rob Shattuck

Governmental blocking of my political email

This entry will keep track of where my political email is being blocked and develop alternative avenues of communicating to the voters from whom I am being blocked.

The focus at the moment is blocking by public schools and other governmental entities.  As discussed in the entry An Internet political campaign, there is a question of whether such blocking is a violation of First Amendment rights.  I am trying to obtain legal opinion about that and am asking public school authorities whether they have obtained a legal opinion.  As of this time there is no legal opinion to report.

I have made inquiries to the following public school authorities about whether there will be blocking :  the Vestavia Hills Board of Education, the Mountain Brook Board of Education, the Jefferson County Board of Education, the Shelby County Board of Education, the Chilton County Board of Education, the Hoover Board of Education, the St. Clair County Schools, the Homewood Board of Education, the Alabaster City Schools, and  the University of Alabama at Birmingham (UAB).

It should be pointed out that First Amendment rights include both a speaker's right to make speech and a listener's right to hear speech.  If public school authorities block my emails to teachers and that is a violation of the First Amendment, it is a violation of the teachers' rights, as well as my rights.  It would seem to me that it would behoove a public school authority to obtain a legal opinion that its blocking of my emails will not be a violation of the First Amendment.

Linked In appears to be a good alternative way to communicate to voters who happen to be teachers and other employees of public schools who are blocking my emails..  I have initiated using Linked In.

Vestavia Hills Board of Education 

Thus far, the only response that I have heard that I have taken as a final answer is from Dr. Jamie Blair of the Vestavia Hills Board of Education, who said in his response to me  "you and any person using our email for political purposes will be blocked."

Jefferson County Board of Education

On March 11, 2014, I received a letter in the U.S. mail  from Dr. Stephen Nowlin, Superintendent of the Jefferson County Board of Education.  Dr. Nowlin's letter cited Perry Education Association v. Perry Local Educators Association, 460 U.S. 37 (1983), in defense of a position of the Jefferson County Board of Education that it will block me if I try to use Board of Education email addresses to communicate to teachers.

I replied by email as follows:
Dear Ms. Littles,
Please advise Dr. Nowlin that I have received his letter, and I thank him very much for directing my attention to relevant legal authority.
As previously noted, Jefcoed has changed to not showing email addresses on the websites and instead has online contact forms. I have no idea whether employees continue to have Jefcoed email addresses, and, if so, what use is made by employees of those email addresses, such as for chatting with friends and taking care of personal matters, and/or what Jefcoed does to restrict any such use.
In short, I am not clear whether all is black and white here.
It is possible that I will, notwithstanding Dr. Nowlin's letter, use online contact forms to try to send messages to teachers.
In reaction to that, Jefcoed may block my computer IP address (or some such) to try to prevent me from communicating to teachers. That's all fine, and I will manage in my campaign.
Again, thanks to Dr. Nowlin for his letter to me.
Sincerely.
I sent a follow up email as follows:
Dear Ms. Littles,
I have some follow up regarding the email I sent to you yesterday in response to Dr. Nowlin's letter.
In my campaign efforts to communicate to teachers in schools throughout the 6th Congressional district, it is hard to keep immediately in mind everything I have done. My email yesterday referred to the Jefcoed websites not showing email addresses and having only contact forms. As our email correspondence reflected, I sent emails to Gardendale High School using email addresses, which I managed to do because I knew the form of Jefcoed email addresses and was able to create email addresses for the Gardendale teachers using their names. I did the same thing with Shades Valley High last Friday.
Thus, I do know that teachers have Jefcoed email addresses to which emails can be sent. I remain ignorant of how much non-school use is made of such email addresses and to what extent Jefcoed monitors and enforces restrictions on non-school use.
I think it is worth pointing out that the U.S. Supreme Court case Perry Education Association v. Perry Local Educators Association, 460 U.S. 37 (1983), which Dr. Nowlin's letter cites, is from 1983. In 1983, the Internet was in its infancy, and I doubt the technology involved in the case was connected with the outside world through the Internet.
It sounds from Dr. Nowlin's letter that no legal opinion has been obtained currently and that language in the 1983 case is being loosely relied on by the Board of Education.
I have been communicating with other Boards of Education and will inform them about Dr. Nowlin's letter. I will also renew my effort to get the views of one or more constitutional law professors in Alabama about this matter.
Communicating to teachers and other employees at schools throughout the 6th Congressional district is an important part of my election campaign. I need to continue such communicating. If Boards of Education act to block my email address, so be it.
I favor strenuous efforts to battle against cyber criminals, hackers, scammers, and abusive spammers. I do not consider myself being abusive. The Board of Education should reflect on whether it wants to allow the bad actors to justify the Board in blocking my non-abusive use.
Sincerely,

Updates
Other Boards of Education, etc.

I have notified the following about Dr. Nowlin's letter:  Shelby County Board of Education, Bibb County Board of Education, Blount County Board of Education, Chilton County Board of  Education, Homewood Board of Education, Mountain Brook Board of Education, Vestavia Hills Board of Education. Hoover Board of Education, University of Alabama at Birmingham (UAB).

Contact with University of Alabama constitutional law professor

I have heard back from the University of Alabama constitutional law professor with whom I initiated contact. I don't have any opinion or view of his to report, and I will be contacting other constitutional law professors in Alabama as well.  I am not optimistic about any of the professors weighing in with a view, but I want this real, live situation in the 6th Congressional district to be called to the attention of the professors, and for the Boards of Education to know that an action on their part to block my emails may come under close scrutiny, As previously indicated, if I was one of the Boards, I would get a favorable, current, legal opinion before I acted to block my email address.

Blount County Board of Education

The Blount County Board of Education has written me and said
our Board policy states "The Board's and/or school's mail system may not be used to distribute political material. (Section 17-1-17 of the Alabama Code, Attorney General's opinion 94-00255). " Our Board does not provide a list of employee names or e-mail addresses to any candidate and we do not give candidates permission to use our e-mail system.
The current Code of Alabama provision is Section 17-17-5(a), which provides
 No person in the employment of the State of Alabama, a county, a city, a local school board, or any other governmental agency, whether classified or unclassified, shall use any state, county, city, local school board, or other governmental agency funds, property, or time, for any political activities.
Alabama Attorney General opinion 94-00255 can be found here.   The opinion, in three separate parts, concludes that a school board may prohibit school employees from (i) wearing partisan political buttons while on school property, (ii) distributing partisan political material through the inter-office and inter-facility mail service, and (iii) displaying partisan political material on school bulletin boards or walls.   The opinion suggests that a school board may even limit the discussion of political candidates by employees during working hours.

I don't know whether Blount County Board of Education prohibits employees from discussing political candidates during working hours or prohibits employees from reading (in print or via the Internet, whether through a school computer or a personal smartphone) partisan political materials during working hours.

The statutory prohibition is against employees using property or time for political purposes.

It is not clear to me that the statutory prohibition requires a school board to block my email address if I send political emails to teachers.  It is not clear to me that it would be constitutional for a school board to block my email address.

Under the circumstances, my decision at the moment is to continue sending emails to teachers and put the onus on school boards to take the step of putting in place on its email system a block of my email address (if their decision is to block me).

Letter from Homewood Board of Education counsel

From: Sweeney, Donald B. <dsweeney@babc.com>
Date: Fri, Mar 14, 2014 at 11:07 AM
Subject: RE: To various Boards of Education and UAB regarding blocking my political email
To: "Wilson, Merrick" <mwilson@homewood.k12.al.us>, "Cleveland, Bill" <bcleveland@homewood.k12.al.us>
Cc: "rdshattuck@gmail.com" <rdshattuck@gmail.com>

Dear Mr. Wilson,

As attorney for the Homewood Board of Education, I believe that you have every right to determine who has access to your email system.

Accordingly, I recommend as board attorney that you block all emails from Mr. Shattuck. If he has case law that clearly and convincingly demonstrates that he has a Constitution right to access the Board’s email system for purposes unrelated to the educational program of the school system I would be glad to review what he submits.

In the meantime I would suggest you block all of his emails and put an end to this time consuming distraction.

I am sending this message to Mr. Shattuck for two reasons. First to share my opinion to you and the Homewood Board of Education. And second to advise Mr. Shattuck that I have no interest in receiving or replying to any emails from him. If he wants to submit a position statement setting his legal contention he may do so by mail to my address.

Yours truly,

Donald Sweeney

P.S. Please forward this opinion to all people listed on Mr. Shttuck’s email to you. Several of the parties listed are clients of mine.

Email to University of Alabama constitutional law professors

[I have emailed to the University of Alabama constitutional law professors I previously contacted the below message]

Dear Professors,

Following up on the email that I sent yesterday, please be advised that counsel to the Homewood Board of Education has written a letter to the Board, which says, in part, as follows:
As attorney for the Homewood Board of Education, I believe you have every right to determine who has access to your email system.
Accordingly, I recommend as board attorney that you block all emails from Mr. Shattuck. If he has case law that clearly and convincingly demonstrates that he has a Constitution[al] right to access the Board’s email system for purposes unrelated to the educational program of the school system I would be glad to review what he submits.
In the meantime I would suggest you block all of his emails and put an end to this time consuming distraction.
. . .
P.S. Please forward this opinion to all people listed on Mr. Shttuck’s email to you. Several of the parties listed are clients of mine.
The full text of said counsel's letter is set forth in my blog entry Governmental blocking of my political email.

Cumberland constitutional law professors

[I sent the following email message to three constitutional law professors at the Cumberland School of Law.]

Dear Professors,

I am a candidate for Congress in the Alabama 6th Congressional district. I am trying to send emails to teachers at public schools using their school email addresses. This is causing a brouhaha. See Governmental blocking of my political email.

Counsel for the Homewood Board of Education is recommending to the Board (and to other Boards that he is counsel to) that they block my email address. (His letter is reproduced at the above link.)

The Board counsel says, if I have case law that clearly and convincingly demonstrates that I have a Constitutional right to access the Board’s email system for purposes unrelated to the educational program of the school system, he would be glad to review what I submit.

I would say that, if First Amendment rights are being violated by a Board blocking my email address, it is not just my right to speak but also teachers' rights to hear my speech.

I am not expecting any of you to weigh in on this. I am only presenting this to you as a means for pushing back against Board counsel.

Update 3/29/14 Homewood Board of Education is blocking me

I sent the below email and got the error message indicated below the email.  I will be endeavoring to find alternative ways to communicate to teachers and staff at Homewood schools.

From: Rob Shattuck <rdshattuck@gmail.com>
Date: Sat, Mar 29, 2014 at 6:45 AM
Subject: Mon. night's televised 6th Cong'l debate at Samford
To: zbarnes@homewood.k12.al.us, ecunningham@homewood.k12.al.us
Monday, at 6 pm, there will be a debate of the Alabama 6th Congressional district candidates at the Samford University Wright Center. The debate will be broadcast live on Channel 13.
I am one of the Congressional candidates and will participate in the debate.
I hope you will attend the debate or watch it on TV.
If you would like to get a preview of the debate and learn about my candidacy, please go to this campaign blog entry: March 31st 6th Con'l district debate on Channel 13.
Thank you very much.
Sincerely,
Rob Shattuck
Candidate, AL 6th Congressional district

Google tried to deliver your message, but it was rejected by the server for the recipient domain homewood.k12.al.us by mx.cloudopscenter.net.[66.199.31.140].

The error that the other server returned was:
550 Your message to this server is not allowed based on Domain Entry: rdshattuck@gmail.com


Update 4/16/14  Shelby County Board of Educations is blocking me

I am endeavoring to send the below email message to social studies teachers at high schools in the 6th Congressional district.  The Shelby County Board of Education is blocking me from sending emails to its high schools.

Re: To: ____ HS Social Studies teachers re: Monday's candidate forum at Hoover HS
On Monday at noon, there is going to be, at the Hoover High School, a candidate forum for the 6th Congressional district candidates, sponsored by WERC.
While your students may not be able to attend the forum, WERC will record it and broadcast it on 105-5 at 7 pm Monday evening.
I am one of the candidates, and I am taking the opportunity to give you some "food for thought" in advance.
I have copied and pasted, onto my campaign website, the issue positions of the other candidates set forth on their respective websites. You can find these copied and pasted positions of the other candidates at these links: (i) Rep. DeMarco's issue positions, (ii) Will Brooke candidacy, and (iii) Positions of Beason, Mathis, Palmer and Vignuelle.
I am trying to make sense of the campaigns of the other candidates, and I have started a campaign blog entry entitled MAKING SENSE OF THIS. It is in draft form at the moment, but I think you will find it thought provoking concerning what this 6th district election campaign is about.
Thank you.
Sincerely,
Rob Shattuck
Be An Alabama Rootstriker

Saturday, February 22, 2014

Message to 6th district voters

Message to voters in the 6th Congressional district

I am a candidate for Congress in the Alabama 6th Congressional district. The primary election is on June 3, 2014.

For information about my candidacy, please go to my campaign blog Be An Alabama Rootstriker.

My campaign charges that, in Washington DC, there is NOT government of the people, by the people, and for the people.

My campaign further charges that the causes of that condition are also causes of Congress being dysfunctional and not able to do its job properly for the American people.

I have posted these charges on the Internet, in this Open Letter to the Alabama Legislative Delegation in Washington.

Senator Shelby has made a non-response response to my charges. For more information, go to Senator Shelby's response to open letter.

Neither Senator Sessions nor Representative Bachus has made a response to my open letter.

The six other candidates in the 6th district (Scott Beason, Paul DeMarco, Will Brooke, Gary Palmer, Chad Mathis, and Tom Vigneulle) have thus far been silent about my charges. (See the email pasted at the previously specified URL about Senator Shelby's response to my open letter.)

Voters in the 6th Congressional district should demand that the validity (or not) of my charges be debated by the candidates, and the voters should decide what they think about my charges and take their conclusions into account as they see fit in casting their vote on June 3rd.

Go to Getting other candidates to respond.
Thank you.

Rob Shattuck
Candidate for Congress, 6th Congressional district
Campaign website Be An Alabama Rootstriker

Friday, February 21, 2014

An Internet political campaign

The driver of my campaign is that, in Washington DC, there is NOT government of the people, by the people, and for the people, and the causes of that condition are also causes of Congress being dysfunctional and not able to do its job properly for the American people. This should have primacy and urgency for the voters, because, until these conditions are corrected, there will be great failures to act by Congress and/or great errors in actions of Congress.

I think the root cause of the foregoing debilitation is the money monster in politics.

I believe the First Amendment right of free speech is of paramount importance for the country, and I do not advocate a solution of public funding of elections that has the effect of abridging the First Amendment right of free speech.

I believe the money monster in politics can be tackled, while preserving the right of free speech.

A fantastic tool is the Internet and its very low cost for carrying out a political campaign.

Currently, I am conducting my campaign through the Internet, I am not asking for cash donations, and I don't have a plan to do TV advertising, U.S. mail advertising, automated robo-calling, phone bank calling, or yard sign distribution.

The Internet and social media are changing our lives, including how election campaigns are conducted and the modes in which we speak to others and hear what others have to say.  In my campaign, I am endeavoring to put political emails in as many inboxes of voters in the 6th Congressional district as I can, and I am using the Internet to find email addresses.  I am tracking and reporting my campaign's progress by giving page view counts in this entry:  Tracking my campaign's progress.

I know email is egregiously abused (and more effective ways ought to be found to lessen the abuse); however, I do not think my email use is or will be abusive. Email recipients who object to my sending them an email can email me back to say they object to my emailing and will not vote for me for that reason (just as a voter who receives an unwanted robo-call at home can contact the campaign doing the robo-call and say the voter will not vote for that candidate). Owners of individual email accounts may block emails from me. Owners of private email systems which are used by multiple persons (such as employees) may choose to block emails coming from my email address. I hope such private email system owners will agree that I am not being abusive, and they won't see fit to block my emails.

Governmental email systems present special First Amendment questions. I have contacted a University of Alabama constitutional law professor to obtain his views about whether there is a First Amendment violation if a public school takes steps to block political emails that I send to school email addresses of teachers and other employees. I am contacting public school administrators about this matter and inquiring whether they have received a legal opinion of counsel about a First Amendment violation if they block political emails. As of this time, the constitutional law professor I have contacted has not told me his views, and I have not been advised of any legal opinion received by a public school administrator.

I am using email addresses on public school websites and on other governmentally owned websites (e.g., public libraries) to send emails to teachers and other governmental employees. Subject to First Amendment questions becoming clarified, I appreciate public school authorities and other governmental entities may take steps to block my emails, but I hope they won't.

In the entry Governmental blocking of my political email, I am keeping track of where my political email is being blocked and developing alternative avenues of communicating to the voters from whom I am being blocked.

[Edit 3/11/14.  I received a letter in the U.S. mail from Dr. Stephen Nowlin, Superintendent of the Jefferson County Board of Education.  Go to Governmental blocking of my political email for more information.]

Thursday, February 20, 2014

Shelby County Police Chiefs meeting

The 6th Congressional district candidates were invited to the Shelby County Chiefs of Police Association meeting yesterday.  This is my selective recapitulation of discussion which took place.  The other 6th district candidates are invited to leave comments on this entry, or to email me comments which they wish to be added to this entry, and I will add them.

In the meeting, the candidates put forth ideas and  policies for governmental actions to help address serious problems facing the country.  My campaign platform is that, in Washington DC, there is not government "of, by and for" the people, and the causes of that condition are also causes of Congress being dysfunctional and unable to do its job properly for the American people.  With respect to the ideas and policies that 6th district candidates propounded at the meeting yesterday, there is a significant problem if a dysfunctional Congress is incapacitated from passing laws implementing good ideas and policies.  This means that primacy must be put on diagnosing why Congress is dysfunctional and coming up with how to try to fix that.

After the candidates spoke, a question was posed about party leadership controlling independence of junior members advocating positions different from the leadership, such control being wielded, say, by how assignments to Congressional committees are doled out.

I expressed to the meeting that I think there is excessive top down control.  I suggested this was part of how the political class in Washington, for its personal benefit, exploits and exacerbates "us against them" political divisiveness.  With that going on, the leadership has little use for junior members weakening the efficacy of the "party line"  for keeping the voters on your party's side riled up against the other side and turning out to vote.. 

Another question raised after the candidates spoke related to what to do about the U.S. military being extended beyond its limits, and near exhausted, in the deployment that has been made of the military in the recent time, and how can the same military stance be kept up by the country.

I limited my response to my theme about the political class in Washington DC exploiting and exacerbating "us against them" political divisiveness, and that this is carried over to the conduct of foreign affairs and wars and can result in very wrong decisions, that is deplorable; and thus it is important for the country to reduce the "us against them" mindset in domestic politics to help prevent it from carrying over and resulting in errors being made in the conduct of foreign affairs. 

Open letter to Alabama delegation in Washington

TO: The Honorable Richard Shelby, Jeff Sessions, Bradley Byrne, Martha Roby, Mike Rogers, Robert Aderholt, Mo Brooks, Spencer Bachus, and Terri Sewell

CC: Mr.  Burton Leflore,  Mr. Erick Wright, Mr. Jesse Smith, Ms. Tamara Harrison Johnson, 6th district candidates

SUBJ: 6th Congressional district election debate

I am a candidate in the 6th Congressional district primary election.

My campaign platform is that I think that, in Washington DC, there is NOT government of the people by the people, and for the people. I further think that the causes of that condition are also causes of Congress being dysfunctional and not being able to do its job properly for the American people.  I think this should have primacy and urgency for the American people, because, until these conditions are corrected, there will continue to be great failures to act by Congress and/or great errors in actions that are taken by Congress. A fuller statement of my platform can be found here.

I am doing my best to instigate debate about my platform among the 6th Congressional district candidates.

The alleged conditions that form the basis of my platform, if they exist, affect voters everywhere in the country, and not just in the 6th Congressional district.

Also, as I discuss in the above linked statement of my platform, incumbent lawmakers who have Washington experience are the most knowledgeable about critical matters that are the basis of my platform.

I do not want to waste the time of the other 6th district candidates and of voters in the district if my platform does not have substantial validity in fact.

If the collective wisdom of the Alabama legislative delegation in Washington is that my platform does not have substantial validity in fact, and that voters in the 6th Congressional district need not have significant concern about what I am trying to put forth in my platform, being advised about that could be  helpful for the conduct of the election campaign in the 6th district by myself and the other candidates.

Accordingly, your views about my platform are respectfully solicited for consideration by the 6th district candidates (including myself) and voters.

Please make reply as and to the extent you are willing to do so.  Replies may be emailed to me at rdshattuck@gmail.com and will be posted in this blog.

Thank you.

Sincerely,
Rob Shattuck

[The foregoing open letter is in the process of being disseminated (via website contact forms, email, and other means as may be needed) to the addressees and to the others designated as being copied.  This entry will be updated as appropriate to reflect the progress of such dissemination, and responses that are received.]

[Update:  Letter has been emailed to Bradley Byrne, Martha Roby, Robert Aderholt, Mo Brooks, Tamara Harris Johnson, and the 6th district candidates (except for Scott Beason).  Letter has been sent to Spencer Bachus, Terri Sewell and Erick Wright using their online contact forms.]

[Update 2/21/14:  Letter has been sent to Senators Shelby and Sessions via their U.S. Senate website contact forms; also to Mike Rogers via email.]

[Update 2/26/14.  A staff member at Senator Shelby's office in Washington DC called me and made a telephonic response to me to  above "open letter", which I had transmitted to Senator Shelby via his U.S. Senate website contact form.  This telephonic response is summarized in this separate entry Senator Shelby's response to "open letter".]

[Update 4/7/14,  I received a letter from Representative Bachus.  See Representative Bachus' response.]

Wednesday, February 19, 2014

An example of what's wrong

From: Rob Shattuck rdshattuck@gmail.com
Date: Wed, Feb 19, 2014 at 8:29 AM
Subject: National Association of Realtors questionnaire
To: campaign@drmathisforcongress.com, campaign@pauldemarco.org, will@votewillforcongress.com, garyp garyp@alabamapolicy.org
Cc: "Mountz, John" JohnMountz@clearchannel.com

Fellow 6th Congressional district candidates:

I assume you have received the National Association of Realtors questionnaire that I have received (which I have taken the liberty of posting on my blog here).

It seems to me that the questionnaire is a representative example, which is is helpful in gaining understanding why, in Washington DC, there is NOT government of the people by the people, and for the people, and how the causes of that condition are also causes of Congress being dysfunctional and not being able to do its job properly for the American people.

Let's try to sort this through.

As the questionnaire reveals, the National Association of Realtors is concerned about things such as the mortgage interest deduction, the deduction for property taxes, the role of the government in the secondary mortgage market, "risk retention" under Dodd Frank, "short sale" rules, and the cap for credit union lending business related to commercial real estate.

It is unquestionable that the real estate sector is an extremely important part of the American economy, and it is further true that provisions of Federal law (such as those covered by the questionnaire) can have favorable or unfavorable effects on the real estate sector, which may be in the short term or in the long term, and it is clear the National Realtors Association wants things that will have favorable effects on the real estate sector.

While something may be viewed as having a favorable effect or an unfavorable effect, quantification and measuring of an effect, whether it be favorable or unfavorable, is, in most cases, extremely imprecise and uncertain. Also, there are frequently collateral negative effects on other things outside of the particular subject of attention. In this case, the subject of attention is the real estate sector, and an example of a negative collateral effect of preserving the mortgage interest deduction is less income taxes collected by the government, which may have to be made up elsewhere, say by higher taxes on other income or reduced government spending. Another possible negative effect is that preserving the mortgage interest deduction may present an obstacle to tax reform and simplification that is thought desirable.

Ideally, a lawmaker should be able to say openly and honestly to the National Realtors Association and to all the lawmaker's constituents to the effect of: "Yes, the real estate sector is an important part of the economy, and yes the provisions the National Realtors Association wants are likely to have some favorable effect on the real estate sector. Quantification of the benefits for the real estate sector is, however, very imprecise and uncertain. Also, the National Realtors Association is only one of scores of trade associations importuning me to do things that will benefit their industries and businesses. There are negative collateral effects to giving the National Realtors Association what they want. On balance, and trying to weigh this for all my constituents, I [have decided] [have decided not] to vote to give the National Realtors Association what it wants."

If every Congressman could speak openly and honestly in the foregoing way, without necessarily making the same decision about whether to give the National Realtors Association what it wants, that, in my view, would go a long way in evidencing that government in Washington DC is "of, by and for" the people.

That ideal, however, is not the way things work in Washington. The "money in politics" monster prevents such openness and honesty by the lawmakers and prevents them from making decisions that they can in good conscience defend as carrying out government "of, by and for" the people. Great non-transparency is the basic proof of this.

This email is already quite long, and I will save for later connecting the foregoing up with the dysfunctionality of Congress.

I hope you will respond to the core contentions of my campaign platform and this email.

I am copying our WERC contact on this email, and I will post this email on my blog.

Also, I still don't have email addresses for Scott Beason and Tom Vigneulle.

Sincerely,
Rob Shattuck

National Association of Realtors candidate questionnaire

NATIONAL ASSOCIATION OF REALTORS® (NAR)


RPAC CONGRESSIONAL CANDIDATE SCREENING QUESTIONNAIRE


(Updated as of 3/1/2013)


It is the policy of NAR's RPAC Trustees that a candidate questionnaire must be completed for all open seat and challenger candidates for the House and Senate. A candidate interview is highly encouraged to obtain the answers to the questionnaire in person. The candidate questionnaire should be used during the interview and must be faxed to RPAC following completion of an online request for RPAC funds for the request to be considered.



All Special Recognition requests for challengers and open seat candidates must be accompanied by a candidate questionnaire or summary of a personal interview. The National RPAC Trustees will not consider requests until the candidate has officially declared for the office he/she is seeking and has filed the appropriate paperwork with the FEC. National RPAC encourages the state interviewing committee to share the candidate questionnaire with the candidate prior to the interview so the candidate may have an opportunity to be familiar with NAR issues. The interviewing committee should obtain from NAR the official NAR answers to the questions; however the answers should not be shared with the candidate. A personal interview is encouraged, but is not necessary as long as the candidate completes the candidate questionnaire. Candidates are also encouraged to interview with NAR staff if they are in Washington, DC for other business as well. However, it is National Trustee policy that NAR staff shall not interview federal challenger candidates until the year of the election so as not to send any possible mixed signals to incumbents with whom NAR is working on legislation. Once an incumbent has received Special Recognition support, NAR Staff shall not meet with their challenger.



Incumbents do not need to complete a questionnaire. However, if state RPAC is considering opposing the incumbent, the incumbent must be offered an interview to defend his record. If he/she chooses to accept, a completed incumbent questionnaire should be submitted with the request, whether the request is for the incumbent or the challenger. In Open Seat races, major candidates from both parties must be offered a questionnaire to complete before making a Primary or General Election request. All questionnaires collected should be submitted along with the request for whichever candidate the state recommends. Incumbent House Members who are running for the senate rather than for re-election to their House seat are not required to complete a questionnaire. When requesting debt relief, a candidate questionnaire is preferred but not required. If one was obtained during the election, it should be forwarded with the request, but the newly elected Member should not be asked to complete one.



The following candidate information should be considered by associations conducting candidate interviews. The information in sections I - IV (background, organizational, financial and reasons for running) may be ascertained from the campaign or candidate in advance of a formal candidate interview conducted by the association. By so doing, your association's screening committee will have more time to focus on the legislative questions found in Section V.




Questions? Please contact your respective NAR Political Representative or Vice President of RPAC Disbursements and Political Programs, Scott Reiter at (202) 383-1072, sreiter@realtors.org, Fax: (202) 383-7580.
Section I. Campaign Information



Candidate’s full name: _____________________________________

Campaign Headquarters Street Address (Do not use Post Box address):

________________________________________________________

City: ________________ State: ______ ZIP: ______________

Telephone #: _________________________

Campaign Manager: ___________________________________________

Campaign Treasurer: __________________________________________

State/Congressional District: ______ Political Party: ___________


Curent Position/Occupation: ________________________________

For current office holders, term expires: ______________________

Previous public offices or appointments: ________________________________________________________________________

________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________


Section II. Financial

How much has been raised? ____________________ Date? ______

Current Cash-on-hand: _____________________________________

What do you expect to spend? Primary: ________ General: ______
(Please choose range for each election: <$250,000; $250,000-$500,000; over $500,000)

Does candidate accept PAC funds? Yes _____ No_____


 

 

 

 

 

 

 

Section III. Basis for Candidacy

Please give three (3) reasons why you are running:_____________________________________

____________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________

List major endorsements received for this race:________________________________________

__________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________


Section IV. Organizational


  1. What previous relationship has this candidate had with the REALTOR® association?

  2. __________________________________________________________________
    __________________________________________________________________

  3. Please name REALTORS® supportive of your candidacy and if they hold any official roles. ________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________


  4. What are demographics of your district, ( i.e. number of registered voters; % registered in both parties; rural, suburban, urban; racial mix, blue/white collar, homeowners, renters)?___________________________________________________________

  5. __________________________________________________________________
    __________________________________________________________________

  6. What is your campaign’s plan/strategy to win?_____________________________
    __________________________________________________________________
    __________________________________________________________________
    __________________________________________________________________


  7. Are you using pollsters or other consultants? Please name them and provide office address and phone number.______________________________________


_________________________________________________________________
________________________________________________________________

6. Please provide most recent polling information: (results, when poll was taken, who conducted poll)_________________________________________________
__________________________________________________________________
__________________________________________________________________
 
 
 




V. RPAC CANDIDATE QUESTIONAIRE: NAR LEGISLATIVE PRIORITIES

 



I. TAXES

A) REALTORS® share the concerns of many Americans that something must be done to solve our nation’s fiscal crisis. However, REALTORS® also recognize that the housing market is one of the largest engines of economic growth and represents the long-term savings of millions of American families. While the Mortgage Interest Deduction (MID) remains very popular with American households, there have been suggestions to make changes such as reducing the cap on deductible interest, eliminating the deduction for second homes, converting the deduction to a credit, or eliminating the deduction entirely.
 



What is your position on tax reforms that would reduce or eliminate the mortgage interest deduction?



___Support ___Oppose ___Other

Please explain:________________________________________________________

________________________________________________________

________________________________________________________

B) Economists estimate that homeowners pay between 80-90% of all federal income taxes. Under current law, taxpayers are permitted to deduct taxes paid to state and local governments, including real property taxes. If this deduction for state and local taxes paid were eliminated, it would result in a system of double taxation – or a tax on a tax. This could have a significant financial impact on homeowners, who already shoulder the vast majority of federal taxes.



What is your position on measures that would reduce or eliminate the deduction for taxes paid to state and local governments?

___Support ___Oppose ___Other


Please explain:________________________________________________________

________________________________________________________

________________________________________________________
 


C) While the Mortgage Interest Deduction has received most of the attention from pundits and academics, the capital gains tax exemption for primary residence is also a crucial provision for American households. Under current tax law, single filers are exempt from capital gains tax on the first $250,000 upon the sale of a primary residence ($500,000 for married couples filing jointly). This exemption allows families to move into a new home without fear of a hefty tax bill upon the sale of their home. While there are no concrete proposals that would alter current law, REALTORS® share homeowners’ concerns that this provision could be changed.


What is your position on tax reforms that would reduce or eliminate the capital gains tax exemption for primary residences?
__ Support __Oppose __Other

Please explain:________________________________________________________

________________________________________________________

________________________________________________________
 



II. HOUSING & MORTGAGE FINANCE



A) Currently, there is discussion about the role that government should play in the secondary mortgage market, and how the nation's Government-Sponsored Enterprises (GSEs), Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac, should be handled. The Obama Administration’s 2011 white paper, "Reforming America’s Housing Finance Market", provides three options for the role of government in the secondary market and the handling of the GSEs. These options range from near total privatization of the secondary mortgage market, save for the Federal Housing Administration (FHA), to the government only entering the market space during a catastrophic event, to the government providing a level of re-insurance on certain mortgage-backed securities (MBS). While many arguments regarding these approaches exist, the current problems with liquidity in the housing mortgage markets have illustrated the importance of some degree of public involvement when private lending activity is constrained.

 


Do you support some level of government participation in the secondary mortgage market to ensure liquidity?

___ Support ___ Oppose ___ Other

Please explain:___________________________________________________

___________________________________________________

___________________________________________________


(B) As part of the Dodd-Frank Act section on "risk retention" (Sec. 941), Congress intended to create a broad exemption for mortgages meeting a specific set of criteria defined as "qualified residential mortgages" (QRMs). Early comments from federal regulators indicate that they would focus on a narrow definition that is driven primarily by a high downpayment standard. Research shows that strong, traditional underwriting standards are much more correlated to loan performance than a borrower’s downpayment percentage.

 

Do you support implementing a QRM definition that includes low downpayment traditional mortgage products that have performed well before and during the nation’s economic crisis?

___Support ___Oppose ___Other

Please explain:________________________________________________________

________________________________________________________

________________________________________________________

C) With the collapse of the private secondary market in recent years, the FHA mortgage insurance program, which historically has operated without cost to taxpayers, has functioned as it was intended, by ensuring that American families have access to affordable mortgage financing. There are some today who, in response to the problems that have plagued the real estate and mortgage markets, propose ending all government involvement in the mortgage process – even for first time homebuyers, and others who are underserved by the private market.



Do you support continuing government programs – like FHA, that assist American families with obtaining safe, affordable mortgage financing?

___Support ___Oppose ___Other

Please explain:__________________________________________________________

__________________________________________________________

__________________________________________________________

 



III. SHORT SALES



A short sale occurs when the proceeds from a home sale are less than the outstanding mortgage balance due to one or more lenders. Short sales often take place in markets where declining home values have left homeowners far underwater. When a homeowner suffers a job loss, medical emergency or other significant hardship, lenders will often agree to conduct a short sale because the shortfall costs less than normal foreclosure proceedings. REALTORS® believe that short sales keep neighborhoods intact and reduce vandalism and blight in affected communities.


However, too often, short sales are unnecessarily delayed by lender inaction or unrealistic assessments of a property’s value. This results in a prospective home buyers walking away while properties enter foreclosure.

Bipartisan legislation has been introduced in Congress that would streamline the short sale process by requiring reasonable response times to short sale applications.



 

Do you support legislation that would require acknowledgement of the short sale request, notification of missing information, and notification of a decision within a reasonable timeframe?



___Support ___Oppose ___Other

Please explain:__________________________________________________________

__________________________________________________________

__________________________________________________________





 

 



IV. COMMERCIAL MARKET



The lack of liquidity continues to be a major barrier to recovery in the commercial market place. More than $1.2 trillion in commercial real estate loans will come due over the next few years, and many of these deals will have trouble getting financing.


Legislation to raise the artificial credit union business lending (MBL) was introduced last session in both chambers. The premise behind the legislation was that it would increase the cap on credit union MBL from 12.25% to 27.5% (total assets) for well-capitalized credit unions, thus offering an opportunity for increased commercial liquidity.



Would you support legislation designed to increase the cap on credit union MBL from 12.25% to 27.5% for well-capitalized credit unions?



___Support ___Oppose ___Other
Please explain:__________________________________________________________

__________________________________________________________

__________________________________________________________

 

Tuesday, February 18, 2014

Rep. Mo Brooks' description of his job

{To help me with a sense of the job of a Congressman, I have read and am thinking about the below letter that Congressman Brooks has on the front page of his campaign website.]

A Letter from Congressman Brooks

 


For more than a year now, I have had the privilege of serving as your Congressman. We have faced some tough challenges together during this year – devastating tornadoes, continuing attacks on freedom and free enterprise, and Washington’s out of control spending. As I witnessed first-hand during the aftermath of last year’s tornadoes, Americans are a remarkably strong and resilient people who are capable of solving big problems.

During this last year, my staff and I have been able to assist hundreds of people with problems navigating the federal bureaucracy. I have spoken with thousands of you at dozens of town halls and hundreds of other meetings across the district. Tens of thousands of people from the 5th District have participated in our telephone town halls. These two-way dialogs are extremely important to our representative government.

During this year, I have consistently voted for legislation to stimulate job creation by reducing excess government regulation and other legislation that attempted to repeal ObamaCare. I have consistently voted to support our troops and keep our national defense strong. I have consistently supported efforts to reduce out-of-control spending, balance the budget, and protect Social Security. And, since I was elected, my staff and I have dramatically reduced spending by the 5th District Congressional office.

As part of my service on the House Armed Services Committee, I have visited with our troops in Iraq and Afghanistan, as well as on ships and bases throughout the world. I am honored to be the first 5th District Congressman to serve on the House Armed Service Committee, which is a major asset for North Alabama. As part of my service on the House Space, Science and Technology Committee, I have fought to promote NASA and defend other critical science programs such as the National Science Foundation.

Contrary to House Leadership wishes, I stood strong and voted against final passage of the Budget Control Act that created the “Super Committee”, disproportionately cuts national defense, and increases America’s debt burden by $2+ trillion. While I prefer to vote with my GOP leadership, and have done so 93% of the time (according to the Washington Post Congressional Scorecard), my first obligation is to America. I vote accordingly.

I will continue to stand firm for defending our liberties preserved in the Bill of Rights and the Constitution, for a strong national defense, for bringing our out-of-control federal spending under control, and for solving the problem with illegal aliens.

America is the greatest nation in history. And now is the time when our county needs us to do our part to solve some tough problems and keep America as the envy of the world.

Thank you for the privilege of serving as your Congressman. I ask for your continued support and encouragement.

105-5 WERC candidate forum

[There will be a 105-5 WERC candidate forum on April 21st at noon.   I am trying to push discussion and debate of my campaign platform per below email.]

From: Rob Shattuck [mailto:rdshattuck@gmail.com]
Sent: Tuesday, February 18, 2014 7:11 AM
To: Mountz, John
Cc: campaign@pauldemarco.org; campaign@drmathisforcongress.com; will@votewillforcongress.com; garyp
Subject: 105-5 WERC candidate forum
 
Dear John,
 
I trust it is acceptable for the candidates to pass on to you what they think the important issues are that ought to be raised in the forum.
 
In that vein, I wish to tell you what I think is most important and that I am making central to my platform.
 
To wit, I think that, in Washington DC, there is NOT government of the people by the people, and for the people.  I further think that the causes of that condition are also causes of Congress being dysfunctional and not being able to do its job properly for the American people.  This should have primacy and urgency for the American people, because, until the situation is corrected, there will be continue to be great failures to act by Congress and/or great errors in actions it does take.  For further discussion, please go here.
 
If other candidates also think the foregoing  has primacy and urgency for the American people,  the hard part is figuring out what to try to do to change the status quo.  I am in the process of formulating my views, and others could have different ideas, all of which might make for extended discussion in the forum.
 
If the other candidates do not think the matter is of primacy and urgency for the American people, let them say so, and little time need be taken up at the forum by the topic.
 
Please note that I have copied the other candidates on this email except I don't have Scott Beason's and Tom Vigneulle's email addresses.
 
Thank you.
 
Rob Shattuck 

Some of the organizations

Organizations focused on money and politics

There are several organizations that are focused on campaign finance as the biggest problem that the country needs to do something about.  Let me try to list these, with links to their websites and also a statement of their basic stance taken from their home pages.

Move To Amend    "We, the People of the United States of America, reject the U.S. Supreme Court's Citizens United ruling and other related cases, and move to amend our Constitution to firmly establish that money is not speech, and that human beings, not corporations, are persons entitled to constitutional rights."

Rootstrikers  "End the system of corruption in Washington"  "Only the people can force lasting change on this broken system."

Demand Progress grassroots democracy intiative  "The Grassroots Democracy Act would make politicians reliant on ordinary voters -- not the super wealthy who fund campaigns today. Ask your lawmakers to sign on as supporters."

Free Speech For People "Reclaim democracy for the people."

OpenSecrets.org   "An independent, nonpartisan, nonprofit organization, the Center for Responsive Politics does not advocate for specific legislation or regulations in any area - with one important exception: Transparency."  "Since real accountability requires access to information, we strongly support and will urge passage of legislation and rules that will make it easier for Americans to stay informed about the electoral process, what our elected officials are doing, and why."

Organizations not focused on money and politics

No Labels  "No Labels is a growing citizens’ movement of Democrats, Republicans and independents dedicated to promoting a new politics of problem solving."  "We are unlike any organization in America. The most powerful interest groups in our nation’s capital work to push our leaders and our political parties apart. No Labels is working to bring them together to forge solutions to our nation’s problems".

No Labels has over thirty specific proposals for improving the government, which No Labels puts in three categories of make government work, make Congress work, and make the Presidency work.  These proposals are listed below.

Make Government Work
NO BUDGET, NO PAY
If Congress cannot pass a budget and all annual spending bills on time, members should not get paid.
TAKE THE TIME, SAVE THE DIME
Move to a two-year budgeting process.
DON'T DUPLICATE, CONSOLIDATE
Get rid of duplicate agencies and programs identified in 2013 by the Government Accountability Office.
BUY SMARTER AND SAVE
Enforce strategic sourcing so that separate divisions within a single federal agency do not make independent contracts for common items.
NO ADDING, NO PADDING
Stop assuming automatic year-to-year spending increases in agency budgets.
21ST CENTURY HEALTHCARE FOR HEROES
Merge the electronic health records of the Department of Defense with the Department of Veterans Affairs.
STAY IN PLACE, CUT THE WASTE
Cut 50 percent of agency travel and replace it with video conferencing.
WASTED ENERGY, WASTED DOLLARS
Reduce energy waste in federal buildings by incentivizing private companies to identify energy savings. The contractors would be paid with the dollars saved instead of with taxpayer dollars.
PLAN FOR EFFICIENT AND EFFECTIVE GOVERNMENT
Create a new Commission for Government Transformation to oversee and effect the transformation of various federal government programs so they will be more economical, efficient and effective.

Make Congress work
No Budget, No Pay
If Congress can't pass a budget and all annual spending bills on time, members of Congress should not get paid.
Up or Down Vote on Presidential Appointments
All presidential nominations should be confirmed or rejected within 90 days of the nomination.
Fix the Filibuster
Require real (not virtual) filibusters and end filibusters on motions to proceed.
Empower the Sensible Majority
Allow a bipartisan majority of members to override a leader or committee chair’s refusal to bring a bill to the floor.
Make Members Come to Work
Make Congress work on coordinated schedules with three five-day work weeks a month in DC and one week in their home district.
Question Time for the President
Provide a monthly forum for members of Congress to ask the president questions to force leaders to debate one another and defend their ideas.
Fiscal Report to Congress: Hear it. Read it. Sign it.
A nonpartisan leader should deliver an annual, televised fiscal update in-person to a joint session of Congress to ensure everyone is working off the same facts.
No Pledge but the Oath of Office
Members should make no pledge but the pledge of allegiance and their formal oath of office.
Monthly Bipartisan Gatherings
The House and Senate should institute monthly, off-the-record and bipartisan gatherings to get members talking across party lines.
Bipartisan Seating
At all joint meetings or sessions of Congress, each member should be seated next to at least one member of the other party.
Bipartisan Leadership Committee
Congressional party leaders should form a bipartisan congressional leadership committee to discuss legislative agendas and substantive solutions.
No Negative Campaigns Against Incumbents
Incumbents from one party should not conduct negative campaigns against sitting members of the opposing party.

Make Presidency work
Regular News Conferences for the President2
Fast-Track Legislative Authority for The President
Make The Parties Pay for Presidential Fundraising
A Line Item Veto With A Twist
Reduce the Number of Appointees Subject to Senate Confirmation6
Identify a "Slate That Can't Wait" of Critical Nominees For Expedited Confirmation
Up or Down Vote on Presidential Appointment8
Question Time for The President9
Expanded Presidential Power to Reorganize
Different Opinions, But the Same Facts
Regular Meetings Between The President And Congressional Leadership



  • Monday, February 17, 2014

    Other candidates on "of, by and for" people

    [Email to the other candidates in AL 6th Congressional district] 
    Gentlemen:
     
    My platform is that I think that, in Washington DC, there is not government "of, by, and for" the people, and that the causes of that condition are also causes of the much talked about dysfunctionality of Congress, which I believe is preventing Congress from properly doing its job for the American people.
     
    Today, my attention was called to Congressman Brooks, and I read his letter appearing on the front page of his website here.  I was struck by his statements in the letter about the extent of his diligence in working at providing service to his constituents.

    My reaction to Congressman Brooks' statement about his service to his constituents was a a question to the effect of, "if every Representative in Congress is diligently serving their constituents the way you have been doing, how can I, in my platform, be contending that 'there is not government of, by, and for the people in Washington'?"  And. further, how can it be said that Congress is dysfunctional?

    I emailed Congressman Brooks with these questions and asked for his reaction.
     
    Because this is what my platform is about, I am going to put this on my blog, and I solicit your respective reactions as well.   (Please note that I am awaiting receiving email addresses for Scott and Tom.)
     
    Thank you.
     
    Sincerely,
    Rob Shattuck
     
     
    [my email to Congressman Brooks]
    Dear Congressman Brooks,
     
    I am a candidate in the 6th Congressional district Republican primary.
     
    My platform is that I think that, in Washington DC, there is not government "of, by, and for" the people, and that the causes of that condition are also causes of the much talked about dysfunctionality of Congress, which I say is preventing Congress from properly doing its job for the American people.  (For an elaboration of this, please see my platform campaign statement here.)
     
    I have read your letter on the front page of your campaign website, in which I see how diligently you have worked at serving your constituents.
     
    My reaction to your statement of your diligent work is a question to the effect of, "if every Representative in Congress is diligently serving their constituents as you have been doing, how can I, in my platform, be contending that 'there is not government of, by, and for the people in Washington?'"  And. further, how can it be said that Congress is  dysfunctional?
     
    Do you have any reaction to these questions of mine?
     
    Thank you.
     
    Sincerely,
    Rob Shattuck

    Wednesday, February 12, 2014

    What the country should do

    How bad is the problem?

    Deciding what the country should do entails evaluating how "bad" the problem is for the American people.

    The political class is most knowledgeable about the system (shaped by campaign finance) plays out in Washington.  Many lawmakers deplore it.  A starter question is, which lawmakers do not deplore it?  All those who deplore it should issue statements to their constituents about how strongly they deplore it, why they deplore it, what they recommend be done, and what is their explanation about why Congress doesn't do something.  All lawmakers who think the system is basically fine and need not be changed should issue rebuttal statements to the lawmakers who deplore the situation.

    Perhaps Senators Shelby and Sessions, and retiring Representative Bachus, can give Alabamians both in and outside of the 6th Congressional district their views on this.

    Pending hearing from some of Alabama's politicians who are in Washington and have the experience and understanding that is the best source of information, I will try to construct what is bad for the American people.

    Let's give the example of health insurance companies.  How much should the profitability of health insurance companies count in the Congressional decision making process about health care?  Many thousands or tens of thousands of people are employed by health insurance companies, and so me consideration arguably can be given by Congress to not doing something that would shrink the size and profitability of health insurance companies, in order that employment for those employees will not be adversely affected.

    By the same token, how much consideration should be given by Congress to stockholders of health insurance companies, and whether the value of their companies will be increased or decreased by health care reform laws that are passed?  Again, some consideration might be legitimately given by Congress to what happens to the value of their stock, but I don't think much.

    By and large, my view is that Congress should be paying attention to only how the American people are going to be affected in the cost and quality of their healthcare.  To the extent keeping health insurance companies big and profitable is important for achieving cost and qualities goals in the health care of Americans, that is fine for Congress to take into account how health insurance companies will be affected by a health care law that is under consideration.

    I don't think the foregoing is a fair evaluation of how it works in Washington.  Health insurance companies are bargainers at the table to preserve, protect and promote their size and profitability.  In my opinion, that is "bad" for the American people and is an example of government in Washington not being "of, by and for" the people, and of Congress being dysfunctional and unable to do its job properly for the American people.

    For a further example, go to this entry:  An example of what's wrong

    If it is agreed that there is a big problem, the hard part is figuring out what the country should try to do about it.

    Discussion, debate and compromise

    My candidacy seeks to engender discussion and debate about what the country should try to make government in Washington "of, by and for" the people and to lessen the dsyfunctionality of Congress.

    In the discussion and debate, I want to throw out for consideration my own ideas.

    As discussed in the entry The dysfunctional Congress problem, the chief driver of the problem is huge costs of campaigns in Presidential, Senatorial, and House of Representatives elections and how the small donor class determines which persons will be viable candidates and have chances of winning elections in which voters do not have meaningful input about what their choices  will be.

    While the politicians will need to be forced by the voters, the voters need to be willing to accept that what some voters want to be done if those voters had their druthers would be greatly unacceptable to other voters.  Voters having a most preferred change need to be willing to try to understand the concerns that other voters may have about that most preferred change,, try to see possible legitimacy in the concerns, and be willing to compromise.

    Significant issues related to what to do

    A. Right of free speech

    I think much consideration needs to be given to the right of free speech.

    The right of free speech is constitutionally enshrined, and it can be safely said that the Founding Fathers attributed value and importance to free speech of very high or the highest rank.  Free speech is a tool that can help fight and protect against oppression by government and by members of society over one another.  It can abet dissemination and consideration of valuable ideas for improving the society.

    Some might like to create a system in which all citizens have equal ability to make speech of equal amplitude, and no citizen should be in a position to have speech that has greater amplitude than some other citizen.  This is highly unrealistic and probably not even desirable.

    There are plainly very great disparities in the amplitude that citizens are capable of regarding their speech.  Public figures (including celebrities and politicians), those in the media (broadcasters, newspapers, reporters, etc.), and those with positions in large organizations allowing them to amplify their speech to others in or in contact with the organizations are notable examples of some members of society of being able to make speech that has much greater amplitude than most citizens.  A person can amplify his or her speech by making personal efforts to amplify the same (write letters to the editor, send emails, participate physically in protest gatherings).  

    Also, one can amplify one's speech in spending money, such as paying for mailings, for media advertisement, for billboard and other physical advertising, and for phone banks.

    I would suggest those who wish for all citizens to be able to have equal amplitude for their speech and who wish to limit the amplitude of the speech of some to more equalize amplitudes, such as by limiting the amount of money that can be spent to amplify speech) should think hard about the great disparities that exist in speech amplitudes (apart from the spending of money) and consider how fair and appropriate it is to pick the spending of money means of amplifying speech to be limited.

    B. Anonymous speech; joint speech

    An important subtopic in the free speech domain is whether and/or how anonymous speech and joint speech with others should be allowed and protected.  [I will expand on this later.]

    C.  Public funding of election campaigns

    The speech that is not to be abridged by the government under the First Amendment is the speech of the citizens.  There is a legitimate concern that public funding of election campaigns may be done in a way that "abridges" the right of free speech of citizens, such as public funding that may be subject to increases by reason of the amount of spending of private money that a candidate does.

    Those who are advocates of public funding of election campaigns should appreciate the foregoing legitimate concern.

    [to be completed]

    Tuesday, February 11, 2014

    The dysfunctional Congress problem

    [Temporary note to readers: I am organizing and editing. I have separate entries, one relative to there NOT being government "of, by and for" the people, and the other about the dysfunctional Congress problem. The entries may ultimately get consolidated. I am doing other editing on the two entries.]

    How does the money monster make Congress dysfunctional?

    There is much power and riches are to be had in Washington DC, and how great the desire for power and riches is for the many people who go to Washington DC to have and keep  power and riches.  These include lawmakers, lobbyists, and leaders of "special interest" organizations.  This is not a universal judgment of the people in Washington DC, but the aggregate of all the desire for power and riches, and doing what is needed to preserve and increase the same, is a significant factor that contributes to preventing the achievement of government "of, by and for" the people and to the dysfunctionaliy of Congress (as will be elaborated below)..

    A further harsh reality is the extent of seeking and having "top down" control in order to build, preserve and further enhance one's personal power and riches.  This means much more falling into line with the wishes of those above one, and much less attunement to making government "of, by and for" the people.

    Mention should also be made of the intense symbiotic relationship between the political class and the donor class.  A harsh reality is the extent to which there is largely one political class (including both Republicans and Democrats) and one donor class, and there is intense rivalry within, and  sometimes a resort to coercive tools, in the domain of the two classes.  Those in the donor class are intent on winding up on the side of election winners, and those in the political class are intent on getting donors lined up with them, and if a donor does not line up, there is a threat of subsequent retribution against the donor.  This symbiotic relationship contributes to undermining the achievement of government "of, by and for" the people.


    While the political class gets their needed funding from the donor class, those in the political class still need to get votes to win and stay in office.  To do this, it helps to keep the voters on their side riled up and angry, which leads to turning every issue into a life and death "us against them" matter.  In short, divisiveness is beneficial to the political class.  This impairs Congress in working together and in reaching compromises that government "of, by and for" the people is properly capable of.

    The "us against them" mentality is also useful to the political class in eliciting booster donations from average voters on top of the funding from the donor class that the politicians mainly rely on.

    The harsh realities contain a risk of the political class and their lobbyist cohorts and others growing their own role and importance and having more power and riches, to the detriment of the people which government is supposed to be of, by and for.  Take, as an example, complexity versus simplicity of laws.  From the point of view of the people, simpler laws might be better, but, from the point of view of lawmakers, lobbyists and others in DC, complex laws can be much better for their own personal interests.  The more complexity there is in the law, the greater the lawmakers' ability to obtain political contributions, and the more opportunity there is for lobbyists to collect fees for lobbying about inrticacies in complex laws.  The same can be said about the scope and reach of laws.  Laws with less scope and less intrusiveness may be pretty good for the people, but lawmakers, lobbyists and others can personally benefit from laws having greater scope and reach.

    Particularly deleterious consequences from the life or death, "us against them" mentality is a stalemate in which there is no compromise between the two sides, and the can gets kicked down the road for someone else to worry about.

    The politicians are not going to fix this

    I hope I have sufficiently delineated the harsh realities that make for government that is not "of, by and for" the people and that have resulted in a dysfunctional Congress, and I have sufficiently delineated the deleterious effects of the same, and that the combination has persuaded you that a high priority should be assigned to trying to fix these matters.

    I further hope you have (or have gained) an appreciation of why the politicians are not going to act on their own, and it will take the citizens to force a meaningful change to be made. I will save for another entry discussion of making changes.

    Saturday, February 8, 2014

    My 2014 election (at a glance)

    [For my history prior to February 2014, click on the "B. My history before Feb. 2014" label to the right.]

    [Update 7/12/14. I have extended my efforts to a write in campaign for the November election. If you want to jump to that, go to On Nov. 4, 2014, write in Rob Shattuck for Congress in AL06.]


    This entry portrays my campaign "at a glance."  It is dynamic and will be revised on an ongoing basis. Links are given to other blog entries, which expand on this entry or give more campaign information.  (You can get back to this entry from any other blog entry by clicking on the "A. My 2014 election (at a glance)" label to the right.)

    [Update 5/11: After you have gone through this entry once, returning to this entry is probably not the best way to keep current with my campaign. One way to stay current is to click on the above blog name "Be An Alabama Rootstriker With Rob Shattuck". Entries will appear on the page in reverse chronological order, with the most recent entry at the top, and you can scroll down through entries going backwards in time to keep up with recent entries. Alternatively, you may use the "Blog Archive" tool at the right side of the page. Click on a month in the "Blog Archive" tool, and you will see a list of the entry titles for the entries made during the month.]

    Introductory video

    If you cannot see embedded video below, the youtube link for the video is: http://youtu.be/SfiLvKVUp9A



    In early February, I filed papers and paid the filing fee to run in the Republican primary election for the Alabama 6th Congressional district. The primary election is on June 3, 2014.  For a map of the 6th Congressional district, go here.

    I filed my papers to run after sending these two letters to the Alabama GOP and Democratic parties.

    The information packet for filing my papers alerted me to campaign financial reporting requirements and other electioneering rules that I needed to learn about and comply with.  I made an initial determination that, until I exceed $5000 in campaign fundraising/spending, I am basically exempt.

    I am conducting my campaign via the Internet. My Internet political campaign consists of this campaign blog and emailing.  I am developing my LinkedIn connections (my LinkedIn page is here).  I expect to make my Facebook page more active.  Also, I expect to make more use of my twitter @BamaRootstriker.  For more about my Internet campaign, see the entries An Internet political campaignGovernmental blocking of my political emailPolitical spamming, and My emailing.

    I am tracking the progress of my campaign by means of page view information.  See Tracking my campaign's progress.

    I have started an entry Voter discussion and debate, in which I am quoting, on a non-identified basis, reactions and feedback I receive from voters about my campaign.

    I responded to a questionnaire from the Birmingham Business Alliance.  I have posted  my response at My response to Birmingham Business Alliance questionnaire.

    The Blount Countian provided a candidate profile questionnaire for me to respond to, which I did.  I have posted my response in the entry The Blount Countian profile questionnaire.

    I was one of four 6th Congressional district candidates who spoke at the Mid-Alabama Republican Club monthly meeting on March 8th.  The other three candidates will be provided an opportunity to speak at the April or May monthly meeting.

    The Shelby County Republican Women and Eagle Forum held a candidate forum for the 6h Congressional district candidates on March 21, 2014 in the auditorium at Westminster School at Oak Mountain Presbyterian Church. See my Eagle Forum video.

    I participated in a televised debate among the 6th Congressional district candidates sponsored by the Jefferson County Republican Party, which was held at Samford University Wright Center on March 31st and carried live by Channel 13. See (i) March 31st 6th Cong'l debate on Channel 13, (ii) My 30 second answers, (iii) Making sure my candidacy is understood, (iv) Questions panelists should ask, (v) My answers to questions panelists should ask, (vi) Debate video; commentary, and (vii) Answer the questions, 6th district candidates.

    I did radio talk show interviews with Matt Murphy and Richard Dixon on April 2 and 4.  You can listen to the interviews at Matt Murphy and Richard Dixon interviews.

    I did an interview on Birmingham's Morning News w/ JT , which aired on April 10.  A podcast has not been posted on that Birmingham's Morning News w/ JT website.  I refer to my interview in the entry "Press release" re Congress stopped functioning 3 years ago.

    In mid-April, I made extensive comment on the campaign positions on issues of the other candidates. See
    "Press release" re Rep. DeMarco's issue positions"Press release" re Will Brooke candidacy, and Positions of Beason, Mathis, Palmer and Vignuelle .

    I participated in a WERC candidate forum on April 21st, held at Hoover High School.  See WERC candidate forum preview.  WERC's podcast of the forum is in two parts:  Part 1 and  Part 2.  Plus My Fox clips.

    The AL.com Editorial Board had a meeting with the candidates on April 21st. Following that meeting, AL.com submitted a question to each of the candidates, and requested that the candidate reply with a 600 word essay, to be posted on the AL.com website, with opportunity for reader interaction. Go to AL.com questions and answers.  My essay answer to my question is posted on AL.com here, and I included a link back to a series of entries in this campaign blog, which series of entries can be accessed starting here.

    The AL.com Editorial Board made a further request for submission to the Editorial Board. See AL.com editorial board candidate endorsements.

    I did radio interviews with Dale Jackson on April 24 and May 1. Links for audios of these interviews may be found at Can Dale Jackson Handle the Truth? and A must listen podcast.

    The Birmingham Federalist Society solicited a possible forum with the candidates. I sent a reply email. See
    Possible Federalist Society discussion with the candidates.

    As of May 11th, there has been a steadfast refusal of the other candidates to respond to my campaign charges or to comment on anything else I have said in my campaign, and the other candidates have essentially ignored me. This is documented in numerous entries in this campaign blog. Some of these entries can be found by going ot the entry Dear Cheryl re RWOT May 1 candidate forum and following links set forth in that entry.

    Further, no panel moderator has asked any candidate to respond to my campaign charges or comment on anything else I have said in my campaign. Also, to my knowledge, no newspaper, radio talk show, or TV news has asked any of the other candidates to respond to my campaign charges or comment on anything else I have said in my campaign.

    "Press releases"  

    Go to  "Press releases"


    My campaign platform 

    My campaign is focused and unitary.

    In brief form, my campaign statement is this::
    My campaign charges that, in Washington DC, there is NOT government of the people, by the people, and for the people.
    My campaign further charges that the causes of that condition are also causes of Congress being dysfunctional and not able to do its job properly for the American people.
    I have posted these charges on the Internet, in an Open Letter to the Alabama Legislative Delegation in Washington
    The open letter can be found on the Internet at this link Open letter to Alabama delegation in Washington.
    Senator Shelby has made a non-response response to my charges. For more information, go to Response of Senator Shelby to open letter..
    Neither Senator Sessions nor Representative Bachus has made a response to my open letter.
    The six other candidates in the 6th district (Scott Beason, Paul DeMarco, Will Brooke, Gary Palmer, Chad Mathis, and Tom Vigneulle) have thus far been silent about my charges. 
    Voters in the 6th Congressional district should demand that the validity (or not) of my charges be debated by the candidates, and the voters should decide what they think about my charges and take their conclusions into account as they see fit in casting their vote on June 3rd.
    I am endeavoring to press the other candidates in the 6th Congressional district. On February 27th, I sent this email message to them:
    Dear Fellow 6th Congressional District Candidates (except Scott Beason, who has not provided me an email address):
    Senator Shelby's Washington office called me and provided me a telelphonic response to my "open letter" to the Alabama legislative delegation in Washington. I have memorialized Senator Shelby's response in this blog entry Senator Shelby's response to open letter.
    Senator Shelby's response to the open letter, it seems to me, provides no help in deciding whether my campaign platform has substantial validity for 6th district voters and whether debate about my campaign platform should or should not be considered important by the candidates and voters in the 6th district.
    It remains to be seen whether Senator Sessions or Representative Bachus will respond and help the 6th district candidates and voters in trying to decide whether my campaign platform is important to debate.
    Our lawmakers in Washington have the greatest knowledge and understanding about how the political system and Congress work in Washington, but if they are not forthcoming, the 6th district candidates and voters will need to try to understand and decide on their own, as best they can.
    I am continuing to develop in my blog my diagnosis and explication of why there is not government "of, by and for" the people in Washington and why Congress is dysfunctional and unable to do its job properly for the American people.
    I continue to urge that this should have primacy, because, until these conditions are improved, a dsyfunctional Congress will continue impaired and unable to act on good ideas for addressing the country's pressing problems. The country does not lack for good ideas, including good ideas that some of you began to present at the two candidate events that have taken place thus far. The problem is not lack of ideas, but rather a dysfunctional Congress.
    "Dysfunctionality" of Congress is not a brand new thing. Congress has been failing to do its job properly for the American people for more than a decade, and the failure is getting worse. In the vernacular, "cans" have been "kicked down the road" too long (i.e., Congress has failed to do its job properly to proactively manage pressing problems confronting the country), and there comes a point of abrupt and shocking externally driven developments (e.g., the rest of the world becoming unwilling to buy U.S. debt except at sky high interest rates, and the Federal budget becoming an ultimate nightmare), that largely dictate "solutions," and "management" of the problems is no longer in the hands of Congress.
    I continue to press the 6th district candidates to react to my campaign platform. Thus far, there seems to be only silence on your part. If I am overlooking something in your campaign that I can put on my blog as your view or position, please let me know.
    I have been strenuously exerting myself to publicize my platform to 6th district voters and will continue to do so. I hope you will express yourself at some point for the benefit of the voters.
    [Update 3/27] See also (i) Second open letter to the Alabama delegation in Washington; (ii) Contacting AL Democratic party chairs, and (iii) Alabama Republicans and independents.

    [Update 4/2]  See Time for Shelby, Sessions and Bachus to respond.

    [Update 4/6]  See Answer the questions, 6th district candidates.

    [Update 4/7]  See Representative Bachus' response.


    What needs to be debated

    1.  Is it valid to say that, in Washington DC, there is NOT government of the people, by the people, and for the people?  If there is not government "of, by and for" the people, what has caused that?  (I have initiated giving my answers to these questions in my entry What is government "of, by and for" the people?.)

    2.  Are there causes of government NOT being "of, by and for" the people that are also causes of Congress being dysfunctional and not being able to do its job properly for the American people?  (This question suggests I think there is a close connection here.  I am working on my diagnosis of this in this entry The dysfunctional Congress problem.)

    3.  What is the primacy and urgency for the American people for improving the foregoing conditions, because, until the conditions are improved, there will be great failures to act by Congress and/or great errors in actions that are taken by Congress and government?  (This calls for an evaluation of how "bad" the problem is.  This will be covered in the other entries mentioned here.)

    4.  What should the country do to try to fix the problem?  (I am working on this question in this entry:  What the country should do.)

    In this debate, it is pointed out there are many organizations and persons who believe that something is fundamentally broken in the political system, and they are making advocacy from a place outside of the Democratic and Republican parties.  There are commonalities and there are differences in the advocacy that these organizations and persons are making.  I too believe something is fundamentally wrong that the country needs to try to fix, and I have commonalities with these other organizations and persons.  I will post information about these other organizations and persons, which can be accessed by clicking on label A4.1 Activities of others.

    My primary citation to voters in this debate is Harvard Law Professor Lawrence Lessig's short book Lesterland: The Corruption of Congress And How To End It and  his 20 minute companion video that is here.  I am also compiling other resource material that voters should consider reading in posts under Label A4.2 Resource materials .

    It is appropriate to tip my hand in the debate.

    I believe the problem at bottom is the age old bugaboo of money in politics, and that this bugaboo has become a monster that is destroying the ideal of government of, by and for the people, and causing Congress to be dysfunctional and not able to do its job properly for the American people is.

    I also say that I believe the First Amendment right of free speech is of paramount importance for the country, and I do not advocate a solution of public funding of elections that has the effect of abridging the right of free speech.  I believe the money monster in politics can be tackled, while preserving the right of free speech.

    In this debate, I think incumbent lawmakers are most knowledgeable about the problem, I have disseminated this Open letter to the Alabama legislative delegation in Washington to try to obtain their views about the problem.  Currently, only Senator Shelby has responded, and his response was not enlightening.  Go to Senator Shelby's response to open letter.



    The political class in DC will not fix it

    Central to my campaign platform is that the political class in Washington DC and the cohorts of the political class (lobbyists and others) personally benefit from there NOT being government of, by and for the people, and from the dysfunctionality of Congress and government.

    Because of their personal benefit, the political class in Washington will not undertake of its own accord any serious examination of, and discussion and debate about, these matters that are of primacy and great urgency for the American people.  Only the citizens, acting in concert, can force the political class to participate in a national debate about the same and to propose something to the American people to be tried to correct the problems.


    What should the country do to try to fix the problem?

    Deciding what the country should do entails first evaluating how "bad" the problem is for the American people.

    If it is agreed that there is a "bad" problem, the hard part is figuring out what the country should do to try to "fix" the problem.

    My candidacy seeks to engender discussion and debate about how "bad" the problem is for the American people and, based on that, what the country should do to try to make government in Washington "of, by and for" the people and to lessen the dsyfunctionality of Congress.  I am developing my own thinking in the entry What the country should do.


    Addressing the country's many other serious problems

    I have described above and in the linked entry The dysfunctional Congress problem how the political class benefits from and exploits and exacerbates the dysfunctionality and engenders  an "us against them" mentality, which turns every issue, and positions on issues, into being part of an "us against them" war.  Dialogue, debate, and the taking of positions are warped.  This must be examined and understood, both at the top and the bottom.  On numerous important issues, I advocate that the warp and distortion get cleared out from both sides, and then for a properly functioning Congress to address and pass laws about the issues, under government that is  "of, by and for the people."  [I will elaborate this is a separate entry that  I will compose in due course.].


    My campaign strategy

    The population of the 6th Congressional district is close to 700,000.  In largely uncontested general elections over the past decade, the number voting in the general election in the 6th district has been 200,000 to 300,000.  In the 2012 primary election,  about 105,000 voted in the Republican primary, Spencer Bachus getting about 60,000 votes, Scott Beason about 30,000 votes, David Standridge 12,000 votes, and three others splitting the remainder.  About 7500  voted in the Democratic primary.  In the general election in November 2012, about 310,000 voted, with about 220,000 voting for Spencer Bachus and 88,000 for Penny Bailey, the Democratic candidate.

    There are seven candidates in the 2014 Republican primary.  I am an unknown.

    The approval ratings of Congress are abysmally low (a 10% approval rating or less).  It is fair to say that Americans are disgusted with their Congress, but they are resigned that they can't do anything about it.

    A Congressional campaign based on the disgust of American people for their Congress lacks viability, because it will be seen as a losing cause, if not a joke.  Those persons who have vested interests in who is elected, and who are a source of campaign funding (put these persons at about 1% of the electorate), will be assiduously working on identifying and supporting a candidate who they think has a decent chance and will best support their respective interests.  The remaining 99% will largely vote according to their inertia, which will include voting their side of "us against them" purveyed by their political elite, and are a hard, hard case to budge out of their inertia.

    Under the foregoing mentality, I have zero viability.

    I have an advantage.  I don't care about that.  I believe I have a campaign statement that has a chance of catching on so that I do have a chance on June 3rd and I am extremely curious to find out what my Internet political campaign is able to produce.

    To have I chance, I have to catch on.

    First, I have to catch on in the 6th Congressional district before June 3rd.

    If I can catch on in the Alabama 6th Congressional district before June 3rd, notice may be taken outside the Alabama 6th Congressional district about what is going on here.  If that happens before June 3rd, there is no telling what will happen on June 3rd.

    So, my paramount purpose is to "catch on" in the 6th district before June 3rd.

    I am and will be pushing as hard as I can to catch on in the 6th district before June 3rd.


    What you can do to help

    If I have caught on with you, you can help me catch on with others.  Just contact me at  rdshattuck@gmail.com, and we can easily come up with a way for you to help.

    If you don't want me to know you are helping, you can obviously proceed to email your friends and acquaintance about my candidacy.

    If you are on LinkedIn, invite me to be a connection.  My LinkedIn page is here.

    See the entry Getting the other candidates to respond.


    What I will do if elected  

    I would say that, if the voters in the Alabama 6th Congressional district voted for the platform in the primary election on June 3rd, that would make for a significant message that would get publicized nationally and that could affect the general Congressional elections in November around the country.  If I win on June 3rd, I would expend great effort urging Congressional candidate around the country s to espouse a similar platform as mine.

    If I win on June 3rd, I would urge voters in the 6th Congressional district to pay attention to what is going on in the rest of the country leading up to the November election. 

    If I am elected to Congress in the November general election, I would be at the bottom of the Congressional totem pole in Washington and the effect of my platform on what happens is entirely dependent on how much support the platform has among voters around the country and how that is manifested in the general election in November.

    There is a good chance my platform will have zero effect in Washington, and further I will be viewed with disfavor by those at the top of the Congressional totem pole (assuming they even know who I am).

    Let's say my platform results in zero effect in Washington, and my job is to represent the interests of the voters in the Alabama 6th Congressional district as best I can.   Currently, I know little about what voters in the 6th Congressional district consider important to them that I need to know about in doing my job in Washington.  I would want voters in the 6th district to tell me what they consider important and that I should be paying attention to.  I would hope retiring Representative Bachus would give me the benefit of the knowledge and experience he accumulated from his years in Congress.

    Voters in the 6th Congressional district will, in some cases, have conflicting interests.  I would want to do weigh and balance the conflicting interests.  Banks and bank regulation is as an example, regarding which, in casting any legislative vote related to the same, I would try to weigh and balance.

    I would should for as much transparency as possible regarding what I do in my job.

    To help me with a sense of the job of a Congressman, I have read and am thinking about a letter that Congressman Mo Brooks has on the front page of his campaign website and that I have copied and pasted here.