Wednesday, November 26, 2014

Small business and money in politics

From: Rob Shattuck <rdshattuck@gmail.com>
Date: Wed, Nov 26, 2014 at 10:47 AM
Subject: Small business owners and money in politics
To: vbrown <vbrown@birminghambusinessalliance.com>
Cc: Alison Howell <ahowell@birminghambusinessalliance.com>

Dear Mr. Brown,

I am communicating to you in your capacity as Vice President, Minority Business and Small Business Development, of the Birmingham Business Alliance.

The Represent.Us organization says:  "The corruption in our political system is causing our elected officials to focus their time and effort to their campaign donors instead of serving their constituents. Represent.Us is building a grassroots movement to end this corruption."

As part of this movement, the Represent.Us organization is conducting an initiative to obtain endorsements by small business owners of  the provisions of the American Anti-Corruption Act. 

Information about this initiative, including an endorsement form and a fact sheet, may be found at this link: Represent.Us small business endorsement.

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

As that entry indicates, I sent communications to the Birmingham Business Alliance (as well as to the Business Council of Alabama and the U.S. Chamber of Commerce) about this matter.  As part of my communications, I submitted to the chambers of commerce two ideas or concepts which I believed were worthy of their consideration in order to improve Congressional performance and the governance of the country by Washington DC.

The purpose of this email is to solicit of you an opportunity for me to make a presentation to small business members of the Birmingham Business Alliance about the above initiative of Represent.Us (which is directed to small business owners).

I appreciate you may not be able to afford me this requested opportunity, but I want to ask nonetheless.

Also, while it is outside your bailiwick, I wish to say that I remain interested in engaging with appropriate persons at the BBA about the two ideas or concepts I submitted to the BBA, as described above.

I am copying Alison Howell on this email because she was the BBA contact for me on my previous communications.

I hope it will turn out that I can be allowed an opportunity to make a presentation to small business members.

Thank you for your attention to this letter.

Sincerely,
Rob Shattuck

UPDATES
12/13 See Other area Chambers of Commerce
12/14 Posted by Small Business News at http://paper.li/AdamGoldstien/1336546104#!politics
1/19/15 More on Congress failing small business

Friday, November 21, 2014

Rep.-elect Palmer, please calm the sh*tstorm

To Representative-elect Palmer:

Between you and me, I think you're the man to calm this sh*tstorm that is going on about immigration.

If you've been following me, I think you know the culprit in this mess is that political class in Washington DC, Democrats and Republicans alike.

Although my instruction for you on this is not completed yet, I think you should have a pretty good idea about how to get started on solving the problem, and ultimately calm the sh*tstorm.

I'll keep close with you on this, and I am sure together we can get the country through.

Sincerely,
Your constituent Rob




Wednesday, November 19, 2014

Dale Jackson says, "Go away."

Can Dale Jackson handle the truth?

Besides the above, see this previous episode: Can Dale Jackson handle the truth?

Independent voting in Alabama

My campaign platform is built around my campaign message to the effect that "the common enemy of average Democrats, average Republicans and average independents is the political class in Washington DC." That political class in Washington includes Republicans and Democrats.

This campaign platform pushes me towards being an Independent.

The condition and situation for independent voting, and alternatives to the Democratic and Republican parties in Alabama, are thus highly relevant for me.

There is a national IndependentVoting.org organization. The website says that Independents are 40% of the electorate. The website indicates there are independent voter groups in 30 or so States.

A group with the name Independent Alabama is shown for Alabama.

I attended an Independent Alabama meeting in 2012. To my knowledge, Independent Alabama is not currently active.

At the meeting I made the acquaintance of persons who were involved with the Libertarian Party of Alabama and the Conservative Party (Alabama)

The Libertarian Party website says:
The Libertarian Party of Alabama is a member run, volunteer driven organization.  We are currently assisting our candidates with their campaigns, engaging in a legal battle against the Alabama Secretary of State for ballot access, and planning ahead for the presidential election in 2016. Every day, we fight to keep the Republicans out of your bedroom and the Democrats out of your wallet.
The Jefferson County ballot in the elections this year showed the following Libertarian candidates:
  1. Ricky Levins, State Representative District 56
  2. Willie Hill, Jefferson County Sheriff
  3. Eric Calhoun, Jefferson County Commission, District 3
  4. Nicole Jordan, Jefferson County Tax Assessor
  5. Mark Bodenhausen, Jefferson County Assistant Tax Assessor, Bessemer Division
  6. Laura Pate, Jefferson County Tax Collector
  7. Leigh Lachine, Jefferson County Assistant Tax Collector, Bessemer Division
In addition, Aimee Love was the 2014 Libertarian candidate for Congress in the AL 6th Congressional district, but her name did not appear on the official ballot. Source http://ballotpedia.org/Aimee_Love 

The Conservative Party website says:
The Conservative Party will rectify the consistent failures and corruption of the current two-party system. The Conservative Party will impose fiscal discipline, restrain the reach of the federal government as outlined in the Constitution and defend America’s traditional family values.
There is a phrase that supports personal activism, “Lead, Follow, or get out of the way!” It has application today regarding this new website and political movement
It is time to shed the “Conservative Republican-Conservative Democrat” label because it just positions the constitutionalists within a sub-group of the overall party. A conservative hyphenated Republican or Democrat is not participating in a true constitutionalists movement. We need to face up to the reality that we constitutionalists are being used because we have no opportunity to “Lead” from the sub-group. The current two-party system has corrupted the Republic that our Founders created and we now live under the iron rule of an Oligarchy.
For those not familiar with the term, Oligarchy is a form of power structure in which power effectively rests with a small number of people.
Modern democracies should be considered as oligarchies. In these systems, actual differences between viable political rivals are small, the oligarchic elite impose strict limits on what constitutes an acceptable and respectable political position, and politicians’ careers depend heavily on unelected economic and media elites. Thus the popular phrase: there is only one political party, the incumbent party.
We constitutionalists must now break free from this system as we “Lead” this nation back to its roots and restore the Republic our Founders created. It is time to return to our nation’s core values and those values are – Life, Liberty and the Pursuit of Happiness. It is time that we embrace these core values within a formal Party structure, begin to stand as one voice and fight back. I think the issue that Thomas Jefferson raises here is a question that as citizens we MUST answer today.
“The issue today is the same as it has been throughout all history, whether man shall be allowed to govern himself or be ruled by a small elite.”
We must band together and find ways to elect statesmen who will represent the citizen’s interest regardless of the party “Brand” they wear. We must not continue to re-elect the current crop of career politicians who refuse to represent the citizens to the harm of our Precious Republic.
We invite you to join a movement that is built to give true patriots a means to compete at the ballot box. Please consider joining hands with us today and together let us build a better tomorrow for Alabama and restore our precious Republic.
 [This entry will be revised and updated as further relevant information becomes known to me.]

Call in with Represent.Us tomorrow 7:30 pm CST

Represent.Us is a national organization, which holds itself out as a movement of, by and for the people, to take a stand against the corruption of government in the United States.

At this stage, the focus of Represent.Us is "Think Nationally. End Corruption Locally." Below is copied and pasted from this webpage: https://represent.us/#



THINK NATIONALLY.
END CORRUPTION LOCALLY.

Pass laws in towns, cities and states that meet the standards of the American Anti-Corruption Act, building momentum from the bottom up.
Represent.Us Chapters are forming all across the country in a nationally coordinated effort to end corruption at the local level.



If you are interested in learning about Represent.Us, and perhaps helping with the formation of a chapter in Birmingham, AL, tomorrow evening (Thursday), there will be an introductory conference call with Represent.Us representatives at 7:30 pm CST.  The below email gives you the needed call in information if you are interested in joining the call:

From: Matt Vaughan <matt@represent.us>
Date: Tue, Nov 18, 2014 at 5:00 PM
Subject: Join our next Intro Call this Thursday at 8:30pm EST
To: Robert Shattuck <rdshattuck@gmail.com>
Robert,

I wanted to invite you to our next Introductory Conference Call this Thursday, November 20th, at 8:30pm EST / 5:30pm PST.The call serves as a basic introduction to Represent.Us for those of you who are new to the campaign or who want a refresher. The call should last 30 minutes and will give you an overview of our campaign and ways you can get more involved. You will also have the opportunity to ask questions, if you have any.

Please click here to RSVP for the call.

Online log-in information: It's best if everyone could log-in online, so you can view the full presentation. Click the link below and you will be prompted to enter the passcode and your phone number. The service will call your phone and connect you to the meeting.
Online link: CLICK HERE TO JOIN AS AN ATTENDEESelect the "Enter as a guest" option, enter your name and email, then click "Join Meeting."
Please join 15 minutes before the start time to get situated.
Web passcode: 246660
If you do not have access to a computer, you can call in the old-fashioned way.
Dial-in number: 1-(719)-457-6209
Participant passcode: 246660
Can't make the call? Sign up for a future call at the link here. Or give us a call at the number below and we can help you get started.

Thanks for taking your first step to fight corruption,

Matt, Izzy and the Represent.Us Team
Represent.Us · PO Box 60008, Florence, MA 01062, United States 

Instructing Gary Palmer- Part I

I believe AL06's Representative-elect can receive significant instruction from the below video and article. So, also, I believe, can his constituents. Let me first post this video and article, and then follow up in a separate entry, which discusses what instruction I think our Representative-elect should take from the video and article.

 

MSNBC’s O’Donnell Defends Gruber: ‘What He Did Was Tell The Truth’










MSNBC’s Lawrence O’Donnell, host of the Last Word, stopped by Morning Joe on Tuesday, November 18 and did his best to defend ObamaCare architect Jonathan Gruber from criticism following video of him saying that the “stupidity of the American voter” was key to getting ObamaCare passed.
Speaking to the Morning Joe panel, O’Donnell argued that “what Gruber did, specific language aside, the offensive language aside, what he did was tell the truth. Legislation always needs collective ignorance about many elements of it in order to move forward.”
As O'Donnell continued his defense of Jonathan Gruber, the MSNBC host insisted that no one who voted for ObamaCare knew more than “30% of what was in it” and the law’s details needed to be kept secret:
I promise you, there was not one person who voted for the Affordable Care Act, who can tell you more than 30% of what was in it. I had the pleasure of coming on this set, sitting in this chair, and announcing to America that there were fifteen taxes in the Affordable Care Act that no one knew about because they were developed in secret as they always are by Senate Finance Committee staff and as soon as Max Baucus' work product was finally public we then knew that.
--
But through the course of that debate, those fifteen taxes did not get debated. You couldn't find anyone who could name you two or three of those taxes that were in there and that is how these things move. And one of the legislative strategies about secrecy is, as soon as you know there is a medical device tax in this bill, the medical device industry and their lobbyists will come in and try to shut that down. 



The MSNBCer went on to spin that if the American public really knew what was in ObamaCare, the law would never have passed Congress:
And so everyone who’s trying to preserve the secrecy of legislation and the moving components of it as it’s going through the process think they're doing the right thing. And in their experience tells them, it's the only way we can get this passed. 
--
I guarantee you that there are elements of that legislation that the writers of it don't want discussed because they are political liabilities within the legislation. That's what Gruber was saying. 
For his part Morning Joe co-host Joe Scarborough pushed back at O’Donnell:
This is obviously a serious problem when you have the Speaker of the House saying that we’ve got to pass it to figure out what's in it. A couple years later, we find out this guy says, well you know what, we just had to hide it from the American people because they're too dumb. That should cause a few alarm bells.
The segment concluded with liberal Washington Post columnist Dana Milbank coming to Gruber’s defense one final time:
He [Jonathan Gruber] didn't use the word stupidity, he didn’t talk about throwing things up against a wall. So it's not the concept. It's the way he said it. And I can't wait for the hearing when they haul this guy down here, because if you guys haven’t just turned it into a verb, it will be in a week or so. 
See relevant transcript below.
MSNBC’s Morning Joe
November 18, 2014
MIKA BRZEZINSKI: I get the feeling his name [Jonathan Gruber] is going to become like a verb. Like, you just got Grubered or something. The guy, I think to Joe's point last hour, let's cut this conversation short, the president should have just said, what a jerk. 
LAWRENCE O’DONNELL: Well, he did. The president didn't do what Nancy Pelosi did last week when she pretended to literally not know who Gruber was. And then you had video of her talking about Gruber years before. You know, look, this fits the Michael Kingsley definition of a gaffe. What Gruber did, specific language aside, the offensive language aside, what he did was tell the truth. 
Legislation always needs collective ignorance about many elements of it in order to move forward. I promise you, there was not one person who voted for the Affordable Care Act who could tell you more than 30% of what was in it. I had the pleasure of coming on this set, sitting in this chair, and announcing to America that there were fifteen taxes in the Affordable Care Act that no one knew about because they were developed in secret as they always are by Senate Finance Committee staff and as soon as Max Baucus' work product was finally public we then knew that. But through the course of that debate, those fifteen taxes did not get debated. 
You couldn't find anyone who could name you two or three of those taxes that were in there and that is how these things move. And one of the legislative strategies about secrecy is, as soon as you know there is a medical device tax in this bill, the medical device industry and their lobbyists will come in and try to shut that down. And so everyone who’s trying to preserve the secrecy of legislation and the moving components of it as it’s going through the process think they're doing the right thing. And in their experience tells them, it's the only way we can get this passed. 
- See more at: http://newsbusters.org/blogs/jeffrey-meyer/2014/11/18/msnbcs-odonnell-defends-gruber-what-he-did-was-tell-truth#sthash.PBe4xU0u.dpuf

Sunday, November 16, 2014

What will Rep. Palmer and Sen. Sessions do?

The United States Supreme Court has decided to take up a case concerning whether or not health insurance policies purchased on federally run health insurance exchanges qualify for tax subsidies. 

Alabama did not create a state exchange and utilizes the federally run exchange. 

Some states without state exchanges are trying to figure out ways to work around a Supreme Court holding that the law does not provide for tax subsidies in states that do not have state exchanges.

The below article  reports, on the other had, that Republican officials in Oklahoma, Alabama, Georgia, West Virginia, Nebraska and South Carolina filed a brief in a related case, which brief argued that people in states with federally run exchanges, including theirs, should not get the subsidies.

Possible ways to fix the possible problem would seem to include that a state without a state exchange could reverse course and create a state exchange, or that Congress could amend The Affordable Care Act to provide that subsidies are available for all health insurance exchanges.

Would Representative-elect Palmer and Senator Sessions care to share with their constituents what their thinking is about how to deal with this possible problem for Alabama?


Bloomberg News

State Obamacare Strategies Take Shape as Court Case Looms

November 11, 2014

Delaware and Illinois have plans to work around a potential Supreme Court ruling that could block millions of Americans from receiving subsidies to buy health insurance, providing a potential road map for other states.
State officials around the country are formulating plans in case of a ruling next year against the Obama administration, which would eliminate billions of dollars in health insurance subsidies for more than 4 million people. The court said Nov. 7 it would hear a case arguing that insurance subsidies in the Patient Protection and Affordable Care Act should only be available in a handful of states.
A verdict against the Obama administration would largely unravel the law in as many as 37 states that don’t operate their own health insurance marketplaces. To keep subsidies intact, Delaware officials are contemplating a technical work-around, while Illinois’ outgoing governor is seeking to push through a legislative fix in the final months of his term.
The Supreme Court case turns on a four-word phrase in the Affordable Care Act. The law says people qualify for tax credits to help pay insurance premiums when they buy a plan on an exchange “established by the state.”
Democrats who wrote the law say it was never their intent to keep people in federally run exchanges from getting subsidies. The Congressional Budget Office, which analyzed the cost of the law including its subsidies before it was passed, always assumed tax credits would be available nationwide.

Work-Around

Delaware decided in 2010 it was too small to build its own exchange. In a phone interview today, the state’s health secretary, Rita Landgraf, said it shouldn’t lose the subsidies because it in effect controls the Delaware version of healthcare.gov, the federally run insurance exchange.
Using healthcare.gov is no different than hiring a contractor for a state-run marketplace, Landgraf said, and “actually brings down the cost.”
Delaware’s solution depends on a favorable definition of what constitutes a state-based exchange. Illinois Governor Pat Quinn is counting on the Democrat-controlled state legislature to act before Bruce Rauner, the incoming Republican, takes office in January.
Quinn said the state will submit an application this week for federal money to support a state-based exchange. He wants the legislature to authorize an exchange during its “veto session” that begins Nov. 19. Mike Schrimpf, a spokesman for Rauner, didn’t immediately respond to an e-mail seeking comment.
“The issue is in the hands of the General Assembly, which would need to pass legislation to create a governing structure for a state exchange,” Quinn’s spokesman, Mike Claffey, said in an e-mail. The application for additional federal money, he said, “would keep all options on the table.”

Partnerships

Other states with federally run exchanges have Republican governors who oppose the law, or may find it more difficult to argue that the state has sufficient control of its exchange.
Seven states including Delaware are considered to be in a “partnership” with the federal system because they handle some elements of insurance sales, such as deciding which plans will be available. Of the seven, Illinois, Iowa, Michigan and Arkansas will have Republican governors next year.
Figuring out which states qualify as running their own exchanges is a question the high court probably won’t answer, said Timothy Jost, a law professor at Washington and Lee University in Lexington, Virginia, who closely follows the health law.

No Easy Fix

Jost, who said he believes the court should uphold the subsidies in all states, thinks Delaware’s argument won’t work if the justices rule against the government. States probably will have to establish their own exchanges, either by legislation or executive orders from their governors, to keep the money coming, he said.
“I hope they can get away with it,” Jost said of Delaware. “I don’t think there’s an easy fix here.”
Landgraf said she believes Delaware’s governor, Democrat Jack Markell, is prepared to issue an executive order to establish an exchange if he needs to.
“We want to protect our citizens in retaining that level of subsidy so they can get their health care coverage and in turn get their health care,” she said.
Sixteen states, including Virginia, Pennsylvania and Mississippi, have said in a legal brief in a related case that they assumed insurance subsidies would be available even in a federally run exchange. Others, including Arkansas, Delaware and Iowa, said they set up their markets as partnerships with the U.S. with the same assumption.
At least six states have said they don’t want the subsidies for their citizens. Republican officials in Oklahoma, Alabama, Georgia, West Virginia, Nebraska and South Carolina filed a brief in the related case arguing that people in states with federally run exchanges, including theirs, shouldn’t get the subsidies.
The case before the Supreme Court is King v. Burwell, 14-114.
To contact the reporter on this story: Alex Wayne in Washington at awayne3@bloomberg.net
To contact the editors responsible for this story: Crayton Harrison at tharrison5@bloomberg.net Drew Armstrong, John Lear

Friday, November 14, 2014

Will WolfPac come to Alabama?

Thursday, November 13, 2014

Time to revisit "Is global warming real?"

In the past two days, we first had U.S., China reach 'historic' deal to cut emissions - USA Today.

Then we have CNN:Top Congressional Republicans slam U.S.-China climate deal.

One of the questions in the Channel 13 debate on March 31st was "Is global warming real?"

Here is the video of the seven candidates' answers:
Alabamas13.com WVTM-TV Birmingham, AL

I said I did not know the answer to the question.

The other six candidates said global warming was either not real or not man made, and was being used by the EPA and the Obama administration to hurt American people and businesses and to have more power and control over them.

In my campaign I repeatedly said the political class in Washington, Republicans and Democrats included, sought to keep the electorate divided, in order that the political class could keep themselves entrenched and increase their power and riches.

I said, on environment and energy, average Democrats, average Republicans and average independents are similar in their desires. Most all of them want to have a robust economy with lots of jobs and have the benefits and comforts provided by the consumption of energy, and at the same time most all want to leave the Earth in decent shape for their children and grandchildren.

Notwithstanding the commonality of these desires of  average Democrats, average Republicans and average independents concerning the environment and energy, the political class in Washington works at stoking an "us against them, Democrats against Republicans" mindset, in order to keep the electorate divided, so the electorate cannot take the needed steps to defeat their common enemy, to wit, said, political class.


What do average Democrats want from EPA?

Do you agree, Gary Palmer?

Wednesday, November 12, 2014

What does Gary Palmer get?

NationalJournal

Republicans Didn't Win the Midterms (They Just Lost Less)

The real winners last week were disgust, apathy, and the push for political disruption.


(Alfredartist-17 / Shutterstock.com)
November 11, 2014 Talk about a shellacking. Two-thirds of voters in last week's elections are dissatisfied or angry with Republican Party leaders in Congress, according to exit polls, and nearly six in 10 disapprove of the GOP altogether.
While it's undeniable which party won the most campaigns this year, the Republican Party didn't win the overall election – not with numbers like that. The winners were disgust, apathy, and a gnawing desire for a better choice – an alternative to what the two major parties are currently offering.
History will record 2014 as one in a pattern of national elections that amounted to a vote of no confidence for the political status quo.
  • In 2010, voters changed ownership of the House from Democrat to Republican in protest of President Obama.
  • In 2008, voters changed ownership of the White House from Republican to Democrat in protest of President Bush.
  • In 2006, voters gave Democrats control of the House, the Senate, and a majority of governorships in what Bush called a "thumpin'."
  • In 2004 and 2012, unpopular presidents won reelection by essentially disqualifying their opponents in brutally negative campaigns. Bush and Obama epitomize this era of voter unrest, because they campaigned successfully as the better of two lousy choices.
With the GOP takeover of the Senate, neither side has held the chamber more the eight consecutive years since 1980, a period of volatility unlike anything since the late 19th century.
The most obvious takeaway from the 2014 midterms is that they were a repudiation of Obama. One-third of voters said they cast their ballot in protest of the president, a rate similar to 2010 and 2006. Six of every 10 voters said they were dissatisfied or angry with Obama, equal to the amount who said the same of GOP leaders. A solid majority of voters said they disapprove of his party.
And, of course, Democrats lost control of the Senate, lost ground in the GOP-controlled House, and lost far more than they won in statehouses. But there's more to it.
Two-thirds of voters say the country is seriously on the wrong track, up 12 points since 2012. That's the second-highest wrong-track number in exit polls since 1990 – and both parties own it.
Only two of 10 voters trust government to do what's right most of the time. Half expect the lives of the next generation to be worse, the most negative view of the so-called American Dream since the question was first asked in 1996. Eight in 10 voters worry about the direction of the economy in the next year. Both parties are responsible for those numbers.
Amid the triumphs, Republicans lost among voters under age 40, all minority voters, and the least- and most-educated voters – none of which points to a healthy future for the GOP.
A pre-election poll suggested that, second only to the economy, breaking gridlock is a major issue for voters. They didn't vote for the GOP as much as they voted against Obama and gridlock. They want leaders to solve the era's big issues – not use them to divide Americans and win elections.
These trends lead to two possible outcomes. The first is depressing, and potentially crippling: Voters continue to cast protest votes, extending the era of boom-and-bust cycles, with power shifting between two unpopular, dysfunctional parties.
The second is disruptive and uncertain, but renewing: Old political structures and habits give way to new systems that are transparent, authentic, competent, and empowering in a way that appeals to the rising generation of millennials.
Among the old structures that need to be sidelined or radically changed are the two major parties. Neither actually competes to be the better party, only the least-lousy choice. Neither is capable at the moment of winning elections, only losing less than the other guys. Neither party inspires, but they both divide and, occasionally, conquer.
Looking ahead to 2016, Republican Rand Paul and Democrat Elizabeth Warren seek to disrupt party orthodoxies via their separate brands of of anti-establishment populism. But their mission may be impossible from inside the parties, the Senate, and Washington. Voters have lost all trust in those institutions.
Which is why last week's results were less of a victory for the GOP than they were a warning.

Tuesday, November 11, 2014

More reporting back by MAYDAY

[Below is copied and pasted from here on MAYDAY website.]

In 2014, MAYDAY moved voters and sent a signal to politicians – but more remains to be done.

MAYDAY.US’s goal is to elect a Congress committed to fundamental reform in how campaigns are funded.
Unlike the DSCC or NRSC, MAYDAY.US’s goal was never about picking up a few seats around the edges in a short-term game. For us, winning elections is the simplest proof of viability for a longer-term strategy for fundamental reform. But it is not the only route. And our core goals saw significant advancement this cycle – setting us up for success in 2016.

A) Did we show politicians electoral consequences for opposing or supporting reform? Absolutely.

MAYDAY.US helped elect two reform champions: Rep-elect Ruben Gallego (D-AZ) and Rep. Walter Jones (R-NC) – showing that we will support politicians from both parties who do the right thing.
In Michigan’s 6th Congressional District, powerful House Energy & Commerce Chair Fred Upton was sitting on a multi-million dollar war chest of special interest money, not expecting to spend it. The New York Times reported, “In a race that was on no one’s radar a month ago, Mayday is now the biggest outside spender” and the KZOO Gazette reported, “U.S. Rep. Fred Upton has cruised to easy victories for 28 years, but this time a national super PAC is spending $2.15 million against Upton.”
Upton’s reaction is well documented: Intimidating Mayday donors, airing ads attacking Mayday, and proclaiming himself a supporter of reform (clinging to a 2002 vote). But of most interest to Upton’s colleagues, he was forced to deplete his war chest and had to be helped by a Koch Brothers aligned group to defend himself.
The Hill reported, “Supporters and opponents of House Energy and Commerce Committee Chairman Fred Upton (R-Mich.) are spending big in the final days before his election, turning a once-ignored race into a possible upset… MayDay PAC, aimed at ending ‘money’s corrupting influence in politics,’ released its latest ad slamming Upton on Wednesday.”
Word has spread and will continue spreading in the halls of Congress that Mayday can create real pain for those who oppose reform. And that can change the calculus for politicians considering whether to support reform.

B) Did we show that the issue of money in politics can move voters? Yes.

Throughout our work this cycle, we built into our campaigns data-driven experiments – testing the impact of our TV ads, mail, and phone program. The results of these experiments are still be compiled and will empower us to run even more impactful campaigns in 2016.
But data that we already have back is below.

RESULTS IN MICHIGAN’S 6th DISTRICT
  • Our campaign significantly increased Paul Clements’ visibility and favorability and made MI-06 a ‘last minute battleground race.’ In late August, Clements was unknown – only 22% of voters could identify him.
  • Early on, Clements was also totally undefined, with nearly equivalent 6% favorability and 7% unfavorability. Two months later in October, twice as many (43%) voters were familiar with Clements and his favorability jumped to 40% and a net positive approval rating.
  • Clements has a significant lead on our issue – among the 25% of voters who do not favor Citizens United, he leads by 61 points over Upton.
  • By the end of the campaign, 51% of polled likely voters agreed “sides with corporate special interests” describes Upton well.
  • Our ad buys reduced Upton’s net approval by over 10 points – forcing him to double his ad buy the last week in a bid to recover.
  • Overall, post-election polling shows that politicians putting their own interests ahead of the people they represent is an important voting issue for 78% of voters.
  • Likewise, politicians putting the interests of big-money campaign donors ahead of the people they represent is also an important voting issue for the vote of 71% of voters.
RESULTS IN SOUTH DAKOTA SENATE RACE
  • US’s message fared well against Mike Rounds – of the 81% of voters who recalled seeing ads about Rounds, three times as many said the ad made them less favorable to him as reported feeling more favorable.
  • Our investment helped give Weiland a boost in the most critical advertising window of any campaign – the weeks right before the election.
  • Our campaign also corresponded with a tripling of the number of voters who felt that Rounds, more than Weiland, would put campaign contributors ahead of his constituents.
  • The week before the election, nearly 49% of voters said Mike Rounds was too close to corporate special interests – compared to just 13% for Weiland.
  • Post-election polling shows that politicians putting their own interests ahead of the people they represent is an important voting issue for 77% of voters.
  • Likewise, politicians putting the interests of big-money campaign donors ahead of the people they represent is also an important voting issue for the vote of 68% of voters.
RESULTS IN NEW HAMPSHIRE SENATE REPUBLICAN PRIMARY
  • During NH-SEN primary, MAYDAY.US ran TV and mail advertisements that called attention to Scott Brown’s history of working at a lobbying firm and being ‘Wall Street’s favorite Congressman’. Nearly six weeks after these ads, 60% of voters still remember the attacks and, of those who remember, 70% view Brown unfavorably.
  • US’s campaign had reach – in an exit poll, 68% of voters saw or heard advertising supporting Rubens and 84% remembered advertising opposing Brown.
  • Our campaign significantly increased Rubens’ visibility and favorability. In July, Rubens was familiar with only 36% of voters and polled at 9%. The race ended with Rubens at 23.5% of the vote and 58% familiarity among Republican primary voters.
  • Campaign finance reform was a key issue in the race - 37% of voters said that reducing the corrupting influence of money in politics was a major factor in their vote. Of these voters, 29% said Rubens would do a better job addressing this issue.
  • Rubens performed best among reform voters with 36% of the vote, just shy of Scott Brown at 37%.
  • Money in politics is an important issue to voters’ feelings toward candidates in Republican primary races. With a targeted campaign, Mayday.US was able to mobilize people passionate about this issue to turn out to vote – even for a relatively unknown candidate.
RESULTS IN ARIZONA’S 7th DEMOCRATIC PRIMARY
  • US transformed campaign finance reform from an issue that would make 41% of people more likely to support a candidate to an important issue for over 60% of voters and “the most important issue to their vote” for 27% of voters in Arizona’s 7th Congressional District.
  • In this district, 42% of these issue voters went on to vote for Gallego, contributing to his almost 13-point win in the primary election.
  • On average, 45% of people who saw our mailers and videos said they made them “much more likely to vote for Gallego” – and a majority went on to do so.
RESULTS IN KANSAS’ SENATE RACE
  • Money in politics was a key issue that Orman won – 70% of voters who find Citizens United unfavorable. Among these voters, Orman leads Roberts by 37 percentage points.
  • Voters concerned about campaign finance reform were a key part of Orman’s base – among those who said they would vote for Orman, 80% do not support rules allowing corporations and billionaires to spend unlimited money.
  • Post-election polling shows that politicians putting their own interests ahead of the people they represent is an important voting issue for 78% of voters.
  • Likewise, politicians putting the interests of big-money campaign donors ahead of the people they represent is also an important voting issue for the vote of 73% of voters.
RESULTS IN IOWA’S 3rd DISTRICT
  • The majority of likely voters (62%) were concerned about the impact of big money donors. Among these voters, Staci Appel enjoyed a 28 point lead.
  • Appel had the most significant lead with the campaign finance reform audience. Among the 27% of voters who do not favor Citizens United, 74% supported Appel – for a 55 point lead.
  • Again – post-election polling shows that politicians putting their own interests ahead of the people they represent is an important voting issue for 64% of voters.
  • Likewise, politicians putting the interests of big-money campaign donors ahead of the people they represent is also an important voting issue for the vote of 68% of voters.
RESULTS IN NEW HAMPSHIRE’S 1st DISTRICT
  • We mobilized 70% of New Hampshire voters concerned about the influence of big money campaign donors on our democracy – 10% of whom were undecided in this close race.
  • Mayday’s investment helped give Carol Shea-Porter a boost in the most critical advertising window of any campaign – right before the election.
  • Overall, post-election polling shows that politicians putting their own interests ahead of the people they represent is an important voting issue for 76% of voters.
  • Likewise, politicians putting the interests of big-money campaign donors ahead of the people they represent is also an important voting issue for the vote of 68% of voters.
RESULTS IN NORTH CAROLINA’S 3rd DISTRICT
  • MAYDAY.US supported incumbent Walter Jones in this race – the only Republican Member of Congress to publicly support changing the way campaigns are funded.
  • Although Jones did not have a competitive race – MAYDAY.US engaged with voters in this district via mail and radio advertising.
  • 82% of voters in this district said it was important to their vote whether politicians put their own interests ahead of the people they represent, according to a post-election survey.
  • In addition, 74% of voters in this district also felt that putting the interests of big money campaign donors ahead of the people they represent is important to their vote.

C) Did we learn lessons that will prepare us for 2016? Yes.

This election taught us some important lessons, and highlighted one important constraint.
  1. First, reform is important, but partisan loyalty is more important when voters see control of a legislative chamber at stake: The data demonstrate that we could make the issue of corruption salient to voters, and thereby move the approval ratings and positive and negatives of candidates on the basis of reform. But especially in the current partisan environment, that movement was not enough to resist strong partisan voting.
  2. Second, it is easier to win voters in safe seats than in partisan battle ground seats: Following from the first lesson, we saw a significant difference in the willingness of both Republicans and Democrats to support the issue of reform in safe, rather than divided, seats. Though we didn't have enough opportunities in primaries to prove this point, the data suggest that it is much easier to rally both Democratic and Republican voters to reform, when the voters don't perceive their decision as affecting the ultimate likelihood of their party's candidates to prevail in the general election. Put differently, if partisanship doesn't matter — because the seat is a safe seat anyway — voters are more willing to be moved on the basis of reform.
  3. Third, transparency has its costs: [MAYDAY.US](http://MAYDAY.US/) committed to full transparency about its donors (over $200). That commitment was costly. Because our large contributors were known, it was easier for at least one powerful incumbent to leverage his power against our contributors.
  4. Fourth, reform requires a candidate: We were proud of the candidates we supported, but the strongest races were with candidates willing to openly and vigorously champion the issue we pressed. This is a difficult challenge, given the unwillingness of most media to even raise the issue. In the New Hampshire Senate Primary, for example, even though our candidate was the only Republican running for Senate _in the nation _who had made campaign funding an issue, not a single question in the one debate asked candidates about this issue. Victory will require Zephyr-Teachout-like candidates passionate on the issue, and a willingness among candidates to force the issue into the campaign.
  5. Fifth, victory is not the only motivator: We entered the races we did to win, but we obviously recognized with at least some of the races we entered that victory wasn't likely. But our objective is to create an incentive sufficient to motivate a majority in Congress to get on the right side of reform. In the four biggest races we entered, our intervention was a significant tax on our opponent, forcing him to spend significantly to neutralize the effect of our campaign. The threat of that tax will motivate other candidates to avoid the risk of a similar fight.
  6. Sixth, and finally, bandwidth is limited: However difficult it was to persuade voters, it was just as difficult to get the media to understand the strategy of our campaign. The simple binary framing of electoral politics makes is hard to demonstrate the effect of interventions within the margin. In 2012, for example, Karl Rove had a powerful impact on American politics, even if he won no elections, because his interventions restricted the options of candidates on the other side. Yet this truth is hard to convey in a framework where the only measure of success is whether a candidate has won or lost.
2014 was our opening move in the fight. In 2016, armed with the progress and lessons from this cycle, our reform movement will be even stronger.