Wednesday, July 30, 2014

MAYDAY is "on": will Gary Palmer 'inoculate' himself?

MAYDAY.US is "on."

MAYDAY.US announced the first two (of the five) Congressional races it will focus on in 2014. In the New Hampshire Republican Senate primary, Mayday is supporting two-term State Senator Jim Rubens against former Massachusetts Senator Scott Brown. In the open Iowa 3rd congressional district, Mayday is supporting former Democratic State Senator Staci Appel against Republican David Young. MAYDAY's full announcement can be found here 

That announcement says:
Today, our announcement also serves as a warning shot to those on Capitol Hill and across the country that want to maintain the status quo. If a candidate for Congress wants to be inoculated from being on our target list, there is an easy way to do so: get on the right side of reform. Pledge to support one or more of the fundamental reforms listed at reform.to – for each of them would change the way campaigns are funded, by reducing the influence of special interests.
The announcement goes on to say:
We created this page for you to easily locate and call representatives in your area and urge them to inoculate themselves by supporting reform. Check reform.to to see where candidates near you stand on the issue. If your representatives haven’t supported any of the reforms, call them, email them, Tweet them, and show up at Townhall meetings and demand an answer. If you get them on the record, let us know
Deadline: Candidates have until 5 PM EST next Tuesday, August 5, to inoculate themselves. That means we have one week to urge candidates to do the right thing.

Is this a partisan matter? 

On the reform.to page, which lists reform legislation, the number of identified Democrats overwhelms the number of identified Republicans. Those who are listed as "supporters," which I believe includes candidates running for Congress who are not incumbents, do not have party affiliation specified.

Gary Palmer, in his list of issues on his campaign website, does not list reform as an issue. I do not see Gary listed as a supporter of any of the reform legislation.

Whether Gary will choose to "inoculate" himself on the issue of "reform," or whether Gary will expressly state any position to the voters about whether he thinks "reform" is needed or not and, if so, what "reform" he advocates, remains to be seen. It would seem that, if Gary does not list "reform" as an issue on his website, and that continues, a fair inference is that Gary does not believe any reform is of much importance, and Gary is largely satisfied with the status quo
.

Previously

See March with me under the MAYDAY.US banner

Saturday, July 26, 2014

For MAYDAY.US supporters

In the two weeks following the MAYDAY.US question and answer session, I left numerous comments on the webpage for the session (which is here), with a view to communicating with other MAYDAY.US supporters, and eliciting discussion. My comments did not produce any results, so I am sending tweets to #maydaypac tweeters, with a link to this blog entry.

I know we are all anxiously awaiting to see what five Congressional races MAYDAY.US is going to focus on in 2014.

Whatever those five races are, and however MAYDAY.US spends its money to publicize its plan in 2014, I think it is extremely important for MAYDAY.US supporters to exert as much effort as they can to publicize MAYDAY.US, in whatever way they can throughout the country in 2014.

I wish to connect with other MAYDAY.US supporters who think similarly and who want to try to coordinate to increase their effectiveness.

If you are interested in connecting, please leave a comment on this blog entry, or send an email to me at rdshattuck@gmail.com.

Thanks.

Update 7/28

I got about 35 page views of this entry over the weekend, plus a few retweets of my tweet.

Whether anything concrete will come out of my solicitations of action remains to be seen.

I personally am not thinking about spending funds to advertise MAYDAY.US. That limits my possibilities to emailing, tweeting, Facebook, telephone calling, and sign carrying and rallies. To start, I am inclined towards emailing, tweeting and Facebook. In using those, the message needs to be pushed out. "Pushing the message out" is a tough slog, especially if one is doing it solo. Emailing, tweeting and Facebook are a lot better if others are doing the same thing.

Maybe you will think it is too much of a tough slog, for scant return, and you can't bring yourself to putting in time and effort.

I am interested in learning anything one is willing to put time and effort to do.

Update 7/29

MAYDAY.US announced the first two (of the five) Congressional races it will focus on in 2014. In the New Hampshire Republican Senate primary, Mayday is supporting two-term State Senator Jim Rubens against former Massachusetts Senator Scott Brown. In the open Iowa 3rd congressional district, Mayday is supporting former Democratic State Senator Staci Appel against Republican David Young. MAYDAY's full announcement can be found here.

MAYDAY supporters need to decide what, if anything, they will do individually in 2014 to advance MAYDAY's goals.

I believe that it is defensible and appropriate for MAYDAY supporters to tweet and email from outside the Congressional districts MAYDAY is targeting into those Congressional districts (or from outside a State into the State in the case of a US Senate race MAYDAY is targeting).

I am going to start tweeting into New Hampshire. I am going to start with the tweet message
 #nhpolitics Support MAYDAY.US. Vote for Jim Rubens in the NH Republican Senate primary on September 9th. https://mayday.us/

Update 8/9

This past week I tweeted a couple hundred tweets into the Iowa 3rd Congressional district. The tweets gave a link to this: To voters in Iowa 3rd Congressional district. I have gotten 92 page views of the link, plus some retweets and favorites from my tweets.

Update 8/10

Yesterday, I used #maydaypac to send about 120 tweets, with the message "I am looking for #maydaypac supporters who want to act in concert to increase effectiveness" and which included a link to this entry. This resulted in over 100 page views of this entry and some retweets and emails to me. Also, it seemed to result in scores of additional page views of To voters in Iowa 3rd Congressional district. This all seemed a very good return on effort.

Update 8/12

There have been 194 page views of this entry, plus a number of retweets, reply tweets and emails. MAYDAY.US has three more candidates and says that it is going to expand from five candidates to eight candidates in 2014. I have not read the response I have received to my tweets. I am going to finish off the #maydaypac list I was working on. Then, I will look at the responses I have received to my tweets and think about the possibilities for "concerted action," taking into account the responses sent to me by #maydaypac supporters

Update 8/14

In the responses I have received, there have been non-specific offers to help. I think the best I can do is to try to lead by example and see if others join in. I have created a second blog, which I have called The MAYDAY Supporters Blog. Let's see what happens.


Thursday, July 24, 2014

March with me under the MAYDAY.US banner

The goal of MAYDAY.US is to reduce the influence of money in politics.

In my write in campaign in the AL 6th Congressional district, I am marching under the banner of MAYDAY.US.  (See On Nov. 4, 2014, write in Rob Shattuck for Congress in AL06.)

Please go to the website of MAYDAY.US  to learn more.

And then please make a decision to march with me this Fall under the banner of MAYDAY.US .


Update: See 

For MAYDAY.US supporters

MAYDAY is "on": will Gary Palmer 'inoculate' himself?

Tuesday, July 22, 2014

What will Gary Palmer do about Johns Hopkins Hospital?

Should Johns Hopkins Hospital be required to pay $190 million to thousands of women who were secretly filmed by a doctor during gynecological exams? (See Reuters, July 21, 2014 article  "Johns Hopkins Hospital settles lawsuit with women filmed by doctor".)

If you have been paying close attention to my campaign and you understand my diagnosis of what is wrong with Congress, you may know that the foregoing question has a strong connection to my campaign.

As discussed in my entry last Friday BhamBizJournal: "Congressional Inaction Could Derail Recovery",  in my diagnosis of what is wrong with Congress, I evolved an analytic of lawmakers being frequently confronted with a matter in which there are general societal interests on two or more sides of the matter, and a special, one sided interest of a small group, and I put forth the idea that the American people and American business would be better off if lawmakers made their decisions based on balancing the general societal interests and ignoring a special, one sided interest of a small group.

This analytic is further discussed in a speech I prepared for the May 12th "Birmingham's Future for Young Professionals" candidate forum, sponsored by Rotaract Club of Birmingham and the Birmingham Business Journal. In the speech, I particularly applied the analytic to several examples, including that of plaintiffs' lawyers. Said prepared speech can be read at Birmingham's Future For Young Professionals. See also The GM faulty ignition recall and My American Lawmaker's Creed.

If you have strong reactions, one way or the other, to plaintiffs' lawyers and their class action lawsuits and the liabilities and settlements that arise from them  (such as Johns Hopkins Hospital having to pay $190 million to thousands of women who were secretly filmed by a doctor during gynecological exams), you ought to be interested in what Gary Palmer thinks about what I have been saying in my campaign and what I say above, and what he would do as a Congressman related to the same.


Friday, July 18, 2014

BhamBizJournal: "Congressional Inaction Could Derail Recovery"

From: Rob Shattuck <rdshattuck@gmail.com>
Date: Fri, Jul 18, 2014 at 12:30 PM
Subject: Congressional Inaction Could Derail Recovery
To: birmingham@bizjournals.com
Cc: Gary Palmer <gary@palmerforcongress.com>, Alison Howell <ahowell@birminghambusinessalliance.com>, Nathan Lindsay <nathanl@bcatoday.org>, "Powers, Wade" <wpowers@uschamber.com>, "jon@palmerforalabama.com" <jon@palmerforalabama.com>

Birmingham Business Journal
2140 11th Avenue S., Suite 205
Birmingham, AL 35205

Dear Sir,

In the above titled editorial [Congressional Inaction Could Derail Recovery] on the "Viewpoint" page in the Business Journal's June 20, 2014 issue (page 19), you say, among other things:
Even the ongoing recovery is threatened by the fierce political divide that has taken hold in our nation....
As has often been the case lately, the primary culprit is Congress . . ..
The petty disputes in Washington must stop. Business leaders need to take an active role by supporting candidates who won't fall into the red vs. blue and Democrat vs. Republican debates.
In my campaign in the AL 6th Congressional district, I complained vociferously that the message of the other six candidates to the voters was, "your enemy is Obama and the Democrats."

Further, I had a diagnosis of factors causing or being a main cause of the "fierce political divide" you refer to.

As part of my diagnosis, I evolved an analytic of lawmakers being frequently confronted with a matter in which there are general societal interests on two or more sides of the matter, and a special, one sided interest of a small group, and I put forth the idea that the American people and American business would be better off if lawmakers made their decisions based on balancing the general societal interests and ignoring a special, one sided interest of a small group.

I also had an idea about "open" Congressional offices, which seemed to have a potential for improving Congressional performance.

Knowing the business community has concerns about Congress failing in its job for the country, I sent emails to the Birmingham Business Alliance, the Business Council of Alabama, and the U.S. Chamber of Commerce. I append those emails below.

I hope those three chambers of commerce have considered my emails, and the chambers view the emails as constructive.

I hope the Birmingham Business Journal also finds the appended emails to be constructive.

I believe Gary Palmer or his campaign team are informed of my emails to the chambers of commerce. I do not know whether Gary thinks my emails say anything that is of interest to him politically.

I am continuing to purvey my campaign messages to the voters and others in the AL 6th Congressional district. I hope the Business Journal thinks this is constructive on my part.

I am copying Gary and the three chambers on this email. I will also post this email on my campaign website.

Thank you.
Sincerely,
Rob Shattuck


---------- Forwarded message ----------
From: Rob Shattuck <rdshattuck@gmail.com>
Date: Thu, Jun 19, 2014 at 1:46 PM
Subject: Tonight's run off debate in AL 6th Cong'l district
To: Alison Howell <ahowell@birminghambusinessalliance.com>, Nathan Lindsay <nathanl@bcatoday.org>, "Powers, Wade" <wpowers@uschamber.com>

To: U.S. Chamber of Commerce (c/o Wade Powers)
      Business Council of Alabama (c/o Nathan Lindsay)
      Birmingham Business Alliance (c/o Alison Howell)

I am continuing to press issues which I raised in my Congressional campaign leading up to the June 3rd primary election. 

Before June 3rd, I responded to your Chambers' questionnaires and, in addition, I wrote the two below emails to the Chambers.

My main contentions have been that there is not government of the people, by the people and for the people in Washington DC, and that the causes of that are also causes of Congress being kaput and not working for the American people.

In my two below emails to the Chambers, I inquired about two ideas or concepts which I believed were worthy of consideration for purposes of improving the governance of the country by Washington DC and improving Congressional performance.

In my campaign I was unable to get any of the other six candidates to discuss my main contentions, and, as part of that failing, I was barely able to make mention to the voters of the two ideas or concepts I wrote to the Chambers about.

I am sure all three Chambers have their particular concerns about the condition of the country's governance in Washington DC and about Congressional performance. 

I think just about everyone is very dissatisfied about these matters.

I think the other candidates in the AL 6th Congressional district primary election offered the voters little or nothing relative to this dissatisfaction of the voters. I doubt that Paul DeMarco and Gary Palmer will offer anything new to the voters in the course of the run off election.

The political commentator community in the 6th Congressional district has also failed the voters.

I don't know whether any of the three Chambers can or will do anything to fill this void.

The occasion of there being a first run off debate tonight affords me an opportunity to remind the Chambers of the two emails I sent about the concepts of "open" Congressional offices and of a lawmaker's principle of balancing general societal interests on more than one side of an issue and disregarding "one sided special interests."

The three Chambers have much experience and understanding about what is right and what is wrong for the American people about the way Washington works and about how well Congress does for the American people.

I hope there is a way for the three Chambers (or any of them) to provide voters in the 6th Congressional district with the benefit of information and understanding that the Chambers have about these matters, as will aid the voters in asking questions of the run off candidates and ultimately making their voting decisions.

Thank you very much for your attention to this letter.

Following my practice of trying to provide as much as possible to voters via my campaign blog/website, I will post this as an "open letter" on my campaign blog/website.

Sincerely,
Rob Shattuck


---------- Forwarded message ----------
From: Rob Shattuck <rdshattuck@gmail.com>
Date: Sat, May 24, 2014 at 10:24 AM
Subject: AL06-- Candidate request for further Chamber feedback re American Lawmaker's Creed
To: Alison Howell <ahowell@birminghambusinessalliance.com>, Nathan Lindsay <nathanl@bcatoday.org>, wpowers@uschamber.com
Cc:  [omitted]

Dear Alison, Nathan, and Wade,

I wish to expand the request for Chamber feedback that I sent you yesterday (yesterday's email is "forwarded" hereby).

As I think Alison and Nathan know, my campaign charges that there is something fundamentally wrong with Congress that critically needs addressing by the American people and Congress.

I have a diagnosis of what is wrong, and am putting forth ideas for fixing, or trying to fix, Congress. 

One of my ideas is the "open" Congressional offices idea that was the subject of yesterday's email.

A related idea grows out of my analytic of lawmakers being frequently confronted with a matter in which there are general societal interests on two or more sides of the matter, and a special, one sided interest of a small group.

I discussed this analytic in a speech I prepared for the May 12th "Birmingham's Future for Young Professionals" candidate forum, sponsored by Rotaract Club of Birmingham and the Birmingham Business Journal. Said prepared speech can be read at Birmingham's Future For Young Professionals. See also The GM faulty ignition recall and My American Lawmaker's Creed.

I think the American people and American business would be better off if lawmakers made their decisions based on balancing the general societal interests and largely ignoring a special, one sided interest of a small group.

Currently, there is a roadblock to this happening. The roadblock derives from the large costs of election campaigns, the continuous fundraising which must go on, and the need for campaign contributions from special, one sided interests (whose interests are limited to their respective small niches in the the domain of Federal law and Federal government actions).

Whether or not this roadblock can be overcome, my question to the Chambers is this: Do you think the American people and American business would be better off if it was possible to inculcate in lawmakers a widespread or universal practice that they make their decisions based on balancing the general societal interests and ignoring special, one sided interests of small groups?

My "open" Congressional offices idea is intended to provide support for such a practice becoming widespread.

I appreciate that the Chambers probably probably will not be able to provide any reaction or feedback before the June 3rd primary election day. Writing the Chambers, however, is a basis for helping me get these ideas in front of the voters in their consideration of the candidates, and, in that vein, I am taking the liberty of copying the other candidates and my local media and forum list on this email.

Thank you for your attention.

Sincerely,
Rob Shattuck
Candidate, AL 6th Congressional district

---------- Forwarded message ----------
From: Rob Shattuck <rdshattuck@gmail.com>
Date: Fri, May 23, 2014 at 12:15 PM
Subject: AL06- Candidate request for "down and dirty" Chamber feedback re "open" Cong'l offices
To: Alison Howell <ahowell@birminghambusinessalliance.com>, Nathan Lindsay <nathanl@bcatoday.org>, wpowers@uschamber.com


Dear Alison, Nathan, and Wade,

You are the contact persons from whom I, as one of the seven candidates in the Alabama 6th Congressional district race, have received the candidate questionnaires of the Birmingham Business Alliance, the Business Council of Alabama, and the U.S. Chamber of Commerce. I have previously replied on the BBA and the BCA questionnaires, and the due time for the U.S. Chamber questionnaire, which I received yesterday, is next Wednesday.

I wish to make, if possible, a "down and dirty" inquiry of the Chambers about an idea I have put forth in my campaign. 

The idea is that of using data capture technology to create "open" Congressional offices, so that there are basically no private communications between a Congressional office and the outside world.

The extent of my written description of the idea is this campaign blog entry: Dear Anthony: re slow Friday afternoon.

Your Chambers have a lot of knowledge and experience of working with Congressional offices. 

My basic question is, could the Chambers live with this concept of "open" Congressional offices?

I think all I am looking for at the moment is a choice of "down and dirty" reactions, such as, "there is no way this idea of "open" Congressional offices could ever be workable and acceptable," or "it is an idea worth exploring," or "that idea has really good potential."

I know you may not be able to give me any quick "down and dirty" reaction at all, but it seemed at least worth asking.

Thank you.

Sincerely,
Rob Shattuck

Tuesday, July 15, 2014

Why Gary Palmer will be ineffective

As Dale Jackson said to me repeatedly, "Congress is broke, and everyone agrees Congress is broke."

Dale didn't exactly define "broke."

In my campaign, I assiduously tried to get at the "brokeness" of Congress.

I asked Senators Shelby and Sessions and Representative Bachus to help the 6th Congressional district candidates and voters about whether Congress was "broke" or not (my own terminology the past five months has been variously Congress is "dysfunctional," "failed," "kaput," "incapacitated" and "sucky"). See Open letter to Alabama delegation in Washington. Senators Shelby and Sessions and Representative Bachus were either non-repsonsive, or they ignored me.

At the Channel 13 televised debate in March, I tried to get the panelists and the audience merely to look back over the past 20 years of Congressional performance, with a view of their trying to reach their own evaluation of that performance.

I literally tried to put questions in the mouths of the panelists (see Questions panelists should ask). In my closing statement at the debate, I asked the audience to go home and take out a pencil and paper and put on one side instances in the past 20 years when they thought Congress did properly do its job for the American people, and, on the other side, instances of failure (including inaction) to do its job for the American people, and to reach an overall conclusion.

Throughout the campaign all of the other candidates steadfastly refused to state what their evaluation was, one way or the other, about whether Congress was "broke."

Further I gave my diagnosis of why Congress was kaput and unable to do its job for the American people.

Given the avoidance of this matter by the other candidates, and their not saying one way or the other about the "brokeness" of Congress, none of them said anything about my diagnosis, or offered their diagnosis, of why we have a failed Congress (assuming they agreed with me that we have a failed Congress).

If Congress has been a failed institution in recent years, what on Earth makes anyone think it is going to be other than a failed institution for the next two years or next four years?

[Edit 7/16/14. In my entry Framing the question, I refer to the possibility of the Republicans winning the Senate in the 2014 elections. I believe a significant part of our kaput Congress is "obstructionism" on the part of a current "weaker" side, which is met with extreme tactics of the other side to overcome the "obstructionism" (e.g., The Affordable Care Act, with Republican "obstructionism" being overcome by the Democrats by resort to use of "reconciliation" to get passage). If Republicans win the Senate, Democratic "obstructionism" will likely be shifted to use of the Presidential veto. If Gary Palmer can be gotten to talk about the subject, what would he say? Would he say, "failed Congress now, failed Congress will continue if Republicans don't win Senate, failed Congress will stop being failed if Republicans win Senate?" I don't think you can get Gary Palmer to say anything about this subject, further showing why Gary Palmer will be ineffective.]

If Congress continues as a failed institution, all in Congress are part of that failure, and all should be considered ineffective.

Gary Palmer refused throughout to talk to the voters about this. See Would Gary Palmer please comment?

If Gary Palmer cannot talk to the voters about Congress being a failed institution, it is pretty certain he is just going to be a contributor to its continued failure for the American people.

Monday, July 14, 2014

Where is Avery Vise on this?

Avery Vise is the Democratic candidate for Congress in the AL 6th Congressional district. His campaign website is here: http://viseforcongress.com/. I do not know where Avery stands on the issues I am raising. Yesterday I sent Avery this email:

From: Rob Shattuck <rdshattuck@gmail.com>
Date: Sun, Jul 13, 2014 at 5:22 AM
Subject: MAYDAY.US
To: info@viseforcongress.com
Dear Avery,I looked at your website and noted the attention it pays to the "gerrymandered" situation in theBirmingham metropolitan area.
I believe you are adequately aware of the advocacy I made in my 6th district candidacy leading up to the June 3rd election.
I am extending my efforts to a write in campaign for the November election, as I explain here.
I think everyone who wants to advance the MAYDAY.US goals would agree that the more attention that gets paid to the issue anywhere, the better.
I have no idea about your own interest in the MAYDAY.US goals. I hope you want to advance them and you will endeavor to advance them in your campaign.
I would be pleased to discuss the subject with you if you wish to do that at anytime.
Sincerely,
Rob Shattuck

Friday, July 11, 2014

On Nov. 4, 2014, write in Rob Shattuck for Congress in AL06

The trigger for this entry is last night's MAYDAY.US Q&A session with Lawrence Lessig and Ben Wikler.

The session started at 9 pm Eastern time, and lasted a little over an hour. A podcast of the session can be viewed here. (Note: when I watched it this morning, the audio did not seem to kick in until a minute into the podcast.)

If you are interested in my efforts, you should find an hour to watch the above podcast. The podcast will let you know about the national effort that is being attempted.

This is a national effort, and regardless of the level of interest in the AL 6th Congressional district to try to fix that which is fundamentally wrong with Congress and our governance in Washington DC, there are and will be candidates and people working on this around the country. If you decide it is hopeless in the Alabama 6th Congressional district, you can find ways to contribute to this national effort in other Congressional districts and states.

In this movement, everything potentially helps to advance the cause.

I put in a great deal of effort to publicize this matter in my run from February to June in the Republican primary in the 6th Congressional district. I had no campaign funding, and, by June 3rd, there was only very limited awareness of my candidacy and campaign. I got only 500 to 600 votes.

The test of all this is whether the voters care about the issue. The national effort will depend on this. Right now I would say it is very unknown how much voters care or could come to care about the issue.

For them to care, the voters need to be made aware of the issue, and to find out whether they care, there needs to be a way for voters to register that they care.

Given that everything can potentially help the national effort, and given the soapbox I have constructed about this issue in the Alabama 6th Congressional district, there seems no reason not to extend my efforts to a write in campaign for the November election. Such is an opportunity to do more purveying of my message to the voters, and, to the extent more voters learn about and react favorably to that message, they can register that they care by writing me in on the ballot in November.

If voters in the 6th district don't care about the issue and don't write me in on the ballot in November, that is a fact of life that the national effort will need to take into account.

To the extent voters show that they care about the issue and write me in to demonstrate the same, that will help the national effort.

All in all, it seems a very easy decision for me to extend my efforts to carrying out a write in campaign for the November election, and I am doing so.


Updates

Where is Avery Vise on this?

Why Gary Palmer will be ineffective

BhamBizJournal: "Congressional Inaction Could Derail Recovery"

Thursday, July 10, 2014

Don't despair over DeMarco and Palmer

If you, like me, think something is fundamentally wrong with Congress and our governance in Washington DC, don't despair that DeMarco and Palmer are useless for you.

MAYDAY.US reached its July 4th goal of raising $5,000,000 to fight the corruption of money in politics. Tonight there is a call in of interested citizens from around the country, and they have already left hundreds of comments on this MAYDAY.US webpage.

While DeMarco and Palmer are useless for representing you in the AL 6th Congressional district, take hope from what citizens around the country are thinking about, discussing, and formulating a plan of action about, in order to bring about changes for the benefit of the country and the 6th Congressional district.

Dale Jackson asked me about candidate endorsement

Yesterday Dale Jackson called me to ask whether I was going to endorse DeMarco or Palmer. Here is podcast of Dale's phone interview of me giving my answer:

Tuesday, July 8, 2014

More against Congress and against DeMarco and Palmer

I subscribe to The Wall Street Journal and not to The New York Times, and I am not generally biased in favor of views espoused in the latter paper. It serves my purpose to call to your attention this July 3rd op/ed piece from the Times, in which the current Congress is described as "the most despised Congress in the modern era, if not ever."

What about you?  Do you despise the current Congress?

I do.

In the past five months, I have also called Congress "dysfunctional," "failed," "kaput," "incapacitated" and "sucky."

I also gave a diagnosis for why I think our Congress is kaput.

I tried as hard as I could to get the other six candidates in the Republican primary to address seriously Congress' failed condition, but they refused for four months.

Now we have DeMarco and Palmer as the runoff candidates, and they continue in their silence on this matter.

Only you can decide what kind of candidates DeMarco and Palmer are for you.

This entry follows up on my June 7th entry Analyzing the run off issues #2, in which I discuss that there are those on both the Left and on the Right who think that something is fundamentally wrong with Congress and with the governance of our country in Washington DC.

Yesterday, I received two further emails representing both the Left and the Right. I append those emails below.

On the Right, the first email is from the Alabama state director of the Convention of States Project. The Alabama House of Representatives has been an early actor in the Project, by passing a bill for the calling of a convention.

On the Left, the second email regards Congressman Peter Fazio of Oregon, and his staking out campaign positions regarding The Government By the People Act and constitutional amendments related to the Citizens United case.

DeMarco and Palmer refuse to talk to you about whether there is something fundamentally wrong with Congress and with the governance of our country in Washington DC.

They won't even talk to you about what your own Alabama House of Representatives has passed a bill about.

If you, like me, think there is something fundamentally wrong with Congress and with  the governance of our country in Washington DC, you should agree that DeMarco and Palmer are useless in contributing to the taking of action to try to improve the situation.

Only you can determine what you think about this.  I hope you will take the time to reach a view about this and about how well DeMarco or Palmer would serve you in Congress.


On the Right

From: Convention of States Action Center <no-reply@conventionofstates.com>
Date: Mon, Jul 7, 2014 at 10:07 PM
Subject: New Message in Convention of States Action Center
To: rdshattuck@gmail.com



New Message

You have received a new message from Joseph Read at Convention of States Action Center.
All Volunteers,
Article V Convention of States National Petition Drive.  (Alabama is competing against the other states).  Please take a moment to sign the petition--then inform others about Article V and get them to sign up.
Article V Convention of States National Petition Drive. 
Below is 3 minute informational video to share with others

COS Alabama VideoConvention of States - Alabama
J. Bryan Read
Alabama State Director
Convention of Stateswww.ConventionOfStates.com 
To reply to this message, visit action.conventionofstates.com and login.



On the Left
From: Rick Staggenborg <staggenborg4senate@hotmail.com>
Date: Mon, Jul 7, 2014 at 7:39 PM
Subject: DeFazio makes constitutional change a campaign issue
To: Rick Staggenborg <staggenborg4senate@hotmail.com>


Congressman Peter DeFazio has gone beyond cosponsoring amendments to abolish corporate personhood and regulate money in elections. In this email, he makes this a campaign issue.

That makes two congressional candidates in Oregon who have done so at this point, including Aelea Christofferson. I hope others are encouraging candidates in their area to do the same.

Rick


In solidarity for peace and justice,

Rick Staggenborg, MD
Board President, Take Back America for the PeopleFounder, Soldiers For Peace International
http://www.soldiersforpeaceinternational.org/2011/01/asymmetrical-warfare.html

Coos Bay, OR
541-217-8044





From: or04ima@mail.house.gov
To: staggenborg4senate@hotmail.com
CC:
Subject: Fighting Big Money Influence
Date: Mon, 7 Jul 2014 17:12:18 -0400


A Message From Congressman Peter DeFazio 
Click here to open this e-mail in its own browser windowClick here to open a plain text version of this email

            
Dear Friends,
I have spent my entire career fighting for the middle class, small businesses, and those struggling to make ends meet. But, recent Supreme Court rulings like McCutcheon and Citizens United have provided the wealthy with far greater leverage in who our government serves. These court decisions opened the floodgates to unrestricted special interest campaign donations, granting unprecedented power to the wealthiest donors in American elections. I wanted to let you know what I’m doing in Congress to remove the corrosive influence of special interest money in our elections and to help level the playing field so that ordinary Americans like yourself have an equal chance to have your views heard and responded to at election time.
In the four years since Citizens United, we’ve seen a surge in campaign spending from special interest groups. According to the Center for Responsive Politics, total spending from outside groups in the 2012 election cycle tripled 2008′s total and topped $1 billion for the first time ever. The undue influence that free-spending corporations and the wealthy elite now have is putting elected officials in a headlock that’s preventing Congress from passing effective public policy that will improve our economy and benefit all Americans.

The deck is stacked against everyday Americans and it’s time for a new dealer. This is why I am an original cosponsor of H.R. 20, the Government by the People Act, which balances special interest influence by giving ordinary Americans a bigger voice. This bill would empower people who don’t have unlimited funds to spend on campaign contributions by giving them a tax credit for small political donations. Oregon already offers a tax credit for small dollar donations, and Congress would be smart to follow our lead.

I am also a co-sponsor of three separate proposed Constitutional Amendments to overturn the judicial over-reach of Citizens UnitedFirst, H.J. Res 20 would grant Congress the power to regulate contributions and independent expenditures in federal elections. The other two Constitutional Amendments - H.J. Res 21 and H.J. Res 34 – undo the flawed notion that corporations have the same constitutional rights of free speech as people. The perverse concept that corporations are people is an egregious interpretation of our Constitutionally-guaranteed right to freedom of speech and is insulting to our Founding Fathers. 

Even prior to McCutcheon and Citizens United, I have advocated for reform of our broken campaign system. I am a long-time cosponsor of H.R. 1404, The Fair Elections Now Act. This legislation would provide matching public funds to candidates. This would allow candidates to run viable campaigns based on small dollar donations and avoid taking cash from corporate lobbyists and other special interests.
The amount of money spent on elections is corrupting the political system, forcing candidates and office holders to spend more and more time raising money, deterring candidates without personal fortunes from attempting to run, and leaving the impression that campaigns are bought and sold. Unfortunately, we have a few short-sighted Supreme Court Justices who legislate from the bench, passing down a string of misguided rulings that have overturned one hundred years of campaign law.

I’m tired of big money politics.  You can be sure that I will continue to support reforms that will put everyday Americans back in charge of their government.
Sincerely,

Peter DeFazio 

Monday, July 7, 2014

"Most despised Congress in the modern era"

The new york times

The Opinion Pages | CONTRIBUTING OP-ED WRITER

Declaration of Independents

JULY 3, 2014


The election this fall will most certainly return to power the most despised Congress in the modern era, if not ever. The House, already a graveyard for common sense, will fall further under the control of politicians whose idea of legislating is to stage a hearing for Fox News. The Senate, padlocked by filibusters over everyday business, will be more of the same, with one party in nominal control.

The fastest-growing, most open-minded and least-partisan group of voters will have no say. That’s right: The independents, on this Independence Day, have never been more numerous. But they’ve never been more shut out of power.

Earlier this year, Gallup found that 42 percent of Americans identified as independents, the highest it has measured since modern polling techniques started 25 years ago. That survey found that Republicans — destined to keep control of the House and possibly take the Senate — comprise only one in four Americans, their lowest share over that same quarter-century span. Democrats were at 31 percent.

The breakdown is even more unrepresentative when you look at the millennial generation, which, by most definitions, is the largest ever, with about 80 million people. These are the baby boomers’ kids, who bring their life-as-a-buffet view to voting as well. They like choice — in music, food, lifestyle, religion and politics.

Half of all Americans under the age of 34 describe themselves as politically independent, according to a Pew Research Center survey earlier this year, a high-water mark. This generation is also near the highest levels — 29 percent — to say they are not affiliated with any religion.

And if you consider California, our most populous state and long a trendsetter for values and politics, the same picture emerges. There, the latest tally of registered voters shows that the fastest-growing segment is the category of “no party.” While the number of these independent voters in California grew by 50,000 people this year, the Republicans lost almost 37,000. Democrats were basically flat, with a loss of 3,000.

The pattern, nearly everywhere but in the states of the old Confederacy, is the same: People are leaving the Republican Party, and to a lesser extent the Democrats, to jump in the nonpartisan lane. The independents are more likely to want something done about climate change, and immigration reform. They’re not afraid of gay marriage or contraception or sensible gun laws. They think government can be a force for good.

And none of those sentiments are represented by the current majority in the people’s House. The Senate, at least, has two independents, both of whom caucus with the Democrats. In the House? Zero. Remember that the next time Speaker John Boehner says that his members are doing the work of the American people. They’re doing Fox’s work, which is why they’ve had endless hearings on Benghazi, and voted more than 50 times to take away people’s health care, but won’t allow a vote on the minimum wage or immigration reform.

If you thought that the last election — in which 1.2 million more votes were cast for a Democratic member of the House, but the Republicans kept control by a healthy margin — was unrepresentative, the coming contest will set a new standard for mismatch between the voters’ will and the people who represent them.

Only 12 percent of the general public is defined as “steadfast conservative,” in the latest breakdown of seven political niches done by Pew. But that rises to 19 percent for the “politically engaged.” Thus the Tea Party, though disliked by most Americans, can win elections in red states, and send people to Washington who will govern only for the narrow, passionate base that elected them.

When you examine the beliefs of independents, particularly among millennials, they lean Democratic. That is, most policy issues pushed by the Democrats get majority support from the nonpartisans. Combining all the categories, Pew put the pro-Democratic cohort at 55 percent, the pro-Republican at 36 percent. But the two party brands are so soiled now by the current do-nothing Congress and their screaming advocates that voters prefer not to have anything to do with either of them.

The indies still vote. They went for Barack Obama, twice, but hate partisanship. They’ve soured on Obama for not fulfilling his great promise of forging a coalition that is neither red nor blue.

What to do? First, recognize the imbalance. Any democracy is broken when a plurality is not represented in the halls of power. The November contest for control of Congress can’t possibly be a “wave election,” as many politicos will claim, because a near-majority has no slate of candidates.

Second, get a slate of candidates. Some states now allow “no party” politicians a prominent place on the ballot, so long as they finish in the top ranks. In the age of crowdsourcing, raising the kind of money to fight, say, a Koch brothers-backed Republican is not all that difficult.

Third, don’t check out. The emerging majority is the most racially diverse, politically open-minded, social-media-engaged generation in history. They’re repulsed by the partisan hacks, and the lobbyist-industrial complex that controls them. You see their influence in everything but the governing institutions in Washington. It’s about time that voice is heard.

Saturday, July 5, 2014

We the citizens did it on July 4th!!

49,325 citizens, in over just 30 days ended yesterday July 4th, contributed $5,131,689 to fight the corruption of money in politics.  Go to: