Be a Rootstriker

Be a rootstriker against the root evil in American politics.

The root evil is corruption by and through campaign finance money.

In the words of Harvard Law Professor Lawrence Lessig, “Practically every important issue in American politics today is tied to this ‘one issue,’" and the overriding agenda (invoking Thoreau) should be to attack “the root, the thing that feeds the other ills, and the thing that we must kill first.”

Aspects of the root evil include the legalized bribery of campaign contributions, non-transparency of the legislative and regulatory processes, the revolving door between Congress and lobbyists, earmarks, and gerrymandering.

Increasingly, a case is being made that the root evil is is causing Congress to fail to do its job properly for the American people.

Rootstrikers is one of a number of organizations that are organizing to defeat the corrupt iron triangle of lawmakers (Republicans and Democrats), lobbyists and leaders of special interest organizations that is based  in Washington D.C.  This iron triangle utilizes a tyrannical control of the government in order to entrench its position and to enrich itself  with billions of dollars of taxpayer moneys and campaign contributions that go into into pockets of the iron triangle and their cronies.  This corruption result in Congress failing to do its job properly to help the American people to try to solve the huge problems that confront the country.

Other organizations fighting the battle are Move To Amend, Amend 2012, UnitedRepublic, Citizens for Ethics and Responsibility in Washington, OpenSecrets, and Public Citizen.

These organizations are urging various actions, including actions that can be taken before Election Day.

I am doing the following:

I have petitioned Spencer Bachus and Penny Bailey in my 6th Congressional district in Alabama to take the Rootstrikers no lobbying pledge.

I am going out in Birmingham by the sides of roads and at highway entrances and exits, during rush hours and at other times, with the below sign:

I am urging the various organizations to join their voices  The current state of that urging is reflected in the below email correspondence to the Move To Amend organization:

From: Robert Shattuck <rdshattuck@gmail.com>
Date: Sat, Sep 22, 2012 at 8:02 AM
Subject: Follow up re Rootstrikers.campaign
To: Kaitlin Sopoci-Belknap <move2amend@gmail.com>, Kaitlin Sopoci-Belknap <info@movetoamend.org>
Cc: Party Building Discussion <pbc@reformparty.org>, "Rick Staggenborg, MD" <staggenborg4senate@hotmail.com>, Lawrence Lessig <lessig@pobox.com>, Szelena Gray <szelena@rootstrikers.org>, Tim Cox <tc@goooh.com>, markh@goooh.com, "Independent Voting.org" <national@independentvoting.org>, drremer <drremer@gvtc.com>

Dear Kaitlin,

I wish to keep the Move To Amend Steering Committee advised of my continuing steps in urging similarly minded organizations that believe the two party system, as it currently exists (including the corruption by and through campaign finance money), is failing the American people, and to join their voices as may increase public awareness of that failure, Yesterday I sent the below email to the 50 state leaders of GOOOH (using their addresses from the GOOOH website) regarding the Rootstrikers campaign, and this morning I have reported the below emailing to the Reform Party, Independent Voting.org and Vote Out Incumbents Democracy to urge them to try to join in in some way:

From: Robert Shattuck <rdshattuck@gmail.com>
Date: Fri, Sep 21, 2012 at 4:33 PM
Subject: Be a rootstriker against the root evil in American politics
To: [email addresses redacted]
[I am an Alabama member of GOOOH. I requested of Tim Cox whether he had an objection to my communicating with other GOOOH members about this. I urged that this email message reflected centrally GOOOH's rationale for its mission (as indicated by GOOOH here), that participation and further purveying of the the message by other GOOOH members would augment public awareness of GOOOH and its program, and that communicating about this with other GOOOH members would be in furtherance of GOOOH's goals. Tim acquiesced regarding my request. I hope none of the addressees will find this email objectionable. Thank you, Rob Shattuck]
The root evil in American politics is corruption by and through campaign finance money. In the words of Harvard Law Professor Lawrence Lessig, “Practically every important issue in American politics today is tied to this ‘one issue,’" and the overriding agenda (invoking Thoreau) should be to attack “the root, the thing that feeds the other ills, and the thing that we must kill first.”
What's a simple test for whether a Congressional candidate will work just for us, or will work for Washington lobbyists who will be his or her future employer?
Just ask the candidate whether the candidate will pledge, if elected, not to become a lobbyist after he or she leaves office.
Professor Lessig and others have started Rootstrikers and are conducting a national campaign to get voters to petition their Congressional candidates to make a pledge that the candidate will not, if elected, become a lobbyist after he or she leaves office. Please go to this link in order to petition your Congressional candidates to make this pledge.
Thank you.
Sincerely,
Rob Shattuck
3812 Spring Valley Circle
Birmingham, AL
(205) 967-5586
My website: Two Party Failure (@retire_Bachus)

I hope Move To Amend will find a way to use,support or just mention the Rootstriker activity to advance MTA's goals.

Thank you very much.

Sincerely,
Rob Shattuck

Pressuring candidates

I have sent the below emails to candidates in the 6th and 7th Congressional districts in Alabama.


From: Robert Shattuck <rdshattuck@gmail.com>
Date: Sun, Sep 16, 2012 at 8:11 AM
Subject: The two party system has failed the American people
To: Penny Bailey <penny4al@gmail.com>

Dear Colonel Bailey,

I am in the 6th Congressional district.

I believe the two party system, as it currently exists, has failed the American people. Your website suggests you agree (your website saying, "Colonel Bailey believes Americans deserve better than partisan politics. They deserve to have elected officials that are truly representatives of the people.").

I would like to find out the extent to which are you prepared to subscribe to and support the course of action until Election Day that I lay out in my blog entry From now until Nov. 6th.

If you are sufficiently committed about this matter, I would like to campaign for you.

Sincerely,
Rob Shattuck
3812 Spring Valley Circle
Birmingham, AL



From: Robert Shattuck <rdshattuck@gmail.com>
Date: Sun, Sep 16, 2012 at 8:35 AM
Subject: The two party system has failed the American people
To: emma@terrisewellforcongress.com, dncham60@aim.com
Cc: 2holt@bellsouth.net, carolfhendrickson@gmail.com, lm241@bellsouth.net, backtoschool75@aol.com

Dear Representative Sewell and Mr. Chamberlain,

I am in the 6th Congressional district.

I believe the two party system, as it currently exists, has failed the American people.

I would like to find out the extent to which each of you is prepared to subscribe to and support the course of action until Election Day that I lay out in my blog entry From now until Nov. 6th.

Depending on which of you is more committed about this matter (and how much more committed), I would like to help campaign for the more committed candidate in the 7th Congressional district.

Thank you.

Sincerely,
Rob Shattuck
3812 Spring Valley Circle
Birmingham, AL

From now until Nov. 6th

Every voter has to decide what political activity the voter is going to undertake, if any, between now and Election Day.

To every voter, I put the question, "Do you think the two party system, as it currently exists, has failed the American people?"  If you do, I have the follow on questions, "How high a priority do you think voters should give to trying to correct that failure, and what do you think you and other voters can do between now and Election Day about it?"

My brief answers to these questions are that there is currently an egregious failure of the two party system for the American people, it is of highest priority to try to correct the failure, and all those who agree should speak in a united voice to Congress to the effect that you Congress need to recognize and acknowledge this failure to the American people before November 6th and propose to the American people through a legislative enactment a proposal for the country to try to address the problem.  Failure of you Congress to do so, or passage of a legislative enactment which the American people consider inadequate, will result in a massive anti-incumbent vote in November with the goal of evicting as many incumbents as possible from Congress and replacing them with new Representatives and Senators who will be more responsive to the will of the American people.  [Update 9/22/12.  I think Congressional action before Election Day is now out of the question.  As a result, I am shifting to pushing for supporting and participating in the Rootstrikers campaign for voters to petition their Congressional candidates to pledge, if elected, not to be a lobbyist after leaving office.  See A6. Be a Roostriker. ]

The foregoing brief answers to the questions posed are elaborated at length in other entries in this blog, with special reference to A2. Thesis, A3. Strategy, and A4. Voters' victory 2012. 

The degree of any success will be highly dependent on the ability of voters, before November, to speak with one united voice on this matter.  To do so will take effort and much belief that the same is what is needed.

A. Getting similarly minded organizations to speak in one united voice

There are many organizations, having tens of thousands and hundreds of thousands of member and supporters, who are largely in agreement that the two party system, as it currently exists, is egregiously failing the American people.  If these organizations cannot make a strong effort to try to speak with one voice before November, there will be a missed opportunity to try to fix a broken, dysfunctional political system.

The problem is the many organizations in question have differing ideas about how to address the situation.  Term limit organizations believe mandatory term limits are needed to fix the problem.  GOOOH's program has been to attempt to organize citizens around the country to select a candidate in their Congressional district to run for the House of Representatives.  The Reform Party is at work trying to create a viable third party.  Independent voter organizations are pushing on behalf of independent candidates.  Organizations seeking an amendment to the First Amendment to fix a broken and dysfunctional political system limit their focus to that.  Anti-incumbent organizations have the objective to vote out incumbents generally as a way to fix the system but are unclear about whether they think any specific changes are needed to improve the system.

These organizations, consciously or by default, decide whether it is or could be to their respective advantages to try to speak with one voice up to Election Day.  Speaking in unison to the effect that the current two party system is egregiously failing the American people can significantly raise public awareness of the problem and how serious it is for the American people.  That increased awareness could afford an opportunity for each organization to have its ideas heard more by the public about what should be done about the problem, and if its ideas receive the greater public support, the organization will be correspondingly empowered in its effectiveness.

More critically, the forces, money, and power that are entrenched (and are fundamentally allied) under the existing system will deploy everything they have got to prevent meaningful change that will lessen their power and riches and that will restore to the American people their rightful control over their own governance.  Against this, the organizations referred to above are largely marginalized and trivialized in trying to advance their ideas.  If they are unable to unite temporarily, I would say they are whupped by their common enemy, to wit the existing two party system controlled with tyrannical sway by the iron triangle of lawmakers, lobbyists and leaders of special interest organizations in Washington DC.

If Congress could be forced to acknowledge, yes, the currently existing two party system is egregiously failing the American people, and here is our proposal, organizations and voters with differing views about what is needed to fix the system would have the opportunity to say, ok, the proposal of Congress is not exactly what I/we wanted, but it represents something worthy of trying out, and I/we are prepared to give it a chance to see what comes out of it.

As this blog indicates, I have spent much time and effort in trying to persuade organizations to try to join their  voices.  Thus far, I have had scant success.

If between now and Election Day, all of these organizations want to try to proceed in their fractured ways, I will probably just sit on my hands and not vote, on the theory that the iron triangle based in Washington DC has a stranglehold on the country that cannot be touched.

I am willing to listen to argumentation from any organization about why its ideas should be supported even though it is not willing to join voices with other organizations.

[Update 9/22/12.  I am focusing on trying to get similarly minded organizations to join their voices in lending support to the Rootstrikers campaign to get voters to petition their Congressional candidates to pledge, if elected, not to be a lobbyist after leaving office.  See A6. Be a Roostriker.]

B. Contact the  candidates in your district

You should contact the candidates for the House of Representatives, tell them the high priority you put on this matter, and ask them their position.  You should particularly get the incumbent to tell you whether he or she will try to act before November and tell the incumbent you will vote against him or her if she does not try to act before November.  [Update 9/16:  I have begun this in Alabama.  See A6. Pressuring candidates

On August 31, President Obama called for a constitutional amendment to overturn Citizens United, saying:
"Over the longer term, I think we need to seriously consider mobilizing a constitutional amendment process to overturn Citizens United (assuming the Supreme Court doesn't revisit it). Even if the amendment process falls short, it can shine a spotlight of the super-PAC phenomenon and help apply pressure for change."

As discussed at length in other entries, the system of campaign finance is central to whether the two party system, as it currently exists, has failed the American people.  The American people are entitled to a national debate that extends well beyond whether there should be a constitutional amendment of overturn Citizens United.  The Republicans need to enter into this discussion and debate.

[Update 9/22/12.  I think few voters will try to pressure their candidates about Congressional action before Election Day.  As a result, I am shifting to urging voters to participate in the Rootstrikers campaign and petition their Congressional candidates to pledge, if elected, not to be a lobbyist after leaving office.  See A6. Be a Roostriker.  If an incumbent will not make that pledge, the voter should vote for another candidate. ]


C. Your friends and acquaintances

Talk this up with your friends and acquaintances.

McConnell "free speech" speech

On Friday, Mitch McConnell gave as speech to the American Enterprise Institute.  For the time being I will use the below article from The Washington Post as a description of the speech.

McConnell defends political contributions as free speech

By Kathleen Hunter, Published: June 15

The Senate’s top Republican accused President Obama and congressional Democrats of trying to restrict opponents’ political speech.
In a speech Friday at the American Enterprise Institute, Minority Leader Mitch McConnell (Ky.) said the Obama administration has shown “an alarming willingness itself to use the powers of government to silence” political speech of groups with which it disagrees.
“It is critically important for all conservatives — and indeed all Americans — to stand up and unite in defense of the freedom to organize around the causes we believe in, and against any effort that would constrain our ability to do so,” McConnell said in the speech at AEI, a Washington group that says it supports free enterprise.
McConnell, long an opponent of restrictions on political contributions, cited a Democratic proposal to require corporations and unions to disclose their spending on political advertising.
He said it would require “government- ­compelled disclosure of contributions to all grass-roots groups, which is far more dangerous than its proponents are willing to admit.”
“This is nothing less than an effort by the government itself to expose its critics to harassment and intimidation, either by government authorities or through third-party allies,” McConnell said.
Democrats proposed the disclosure measure in response to a 2010 Supreme Court decision overturning a decades-old ban on companies using general funds to run ads supporting or opposing federal candidates.
The ruling led to the rise of political organizations known as super PACs, which can raise unlimited money from any source. A number of super PACs have formed to influence the 2012 presidential and congressional races.
The House passed the measure in 2010, when Democrats controlled the chamber. The legislation did not advance in the Senate, where all the Republicans opposed it.
The bill’s chief sponsor, Sen. Charles E. Schumer (D-N.Y.), held a March hearing on a scaled-back version and has said he may seek another vote on it before the November elections.
McConnell singled out the Internal Revenue Service for criticism.
“Earlier this year, dozens of tea party-affiliated groups across the country learned what it was like to draw the attention of the speech police when they received a lengthy questionnaire from the IRS demanding attendance lists, meeting transcripts and donor information,” he said.
The IRS has denied that it selects groups for scrutiny based on their political views.
IRS Commissioner Douglas H. Shulman said March 21 that the tea party groups had applied for nonprofit status and could have operated as nonprofits without seeking IRS approval first.
“There’s many safeguards built in so this has nothing to do with election cycles and politics,” he told a House Appropriations subcommittee. “This notion that we’re targeting anyone is off.”
— Bloomberg News 

[end of article]

On the matter of campaign finance, there are probably millions of voters who now  agree with Harvard Law Professor Lawrence Lessig that “Practically every important issue in American politics today is tied to this ‘one issue [campaign finance],’" and the overriding agenda (invoking Thoreau) should be to attack “the root, the thing that feeds the other ills, and the thing that we must kill first.”

It can be well hoped that McConnell's speech will help instigate a national and Congressional debate on the issue of campaign finance, including whether and to what extent the right of free speech should include the right to speak anonymously, the extent to which corporations (and other organizations) need to have a constitutionally protected right of free speech, and whether and the extent to which more rigorous truthfulness standards should be applicable to political speech (e.g. to political speech of corporations).

You may find comments I have posted at the following webpages:
AEI online magazine The American
Breitbart (lot of comments if you want to weigh in; I don't know for sure I have one there)
Unedited Politics
Marooned in Marin (pending approval)
National Review

[also trying to engage Professor Lawrence Lessig and Wall Street Journal]

From: Robert Shattuck <rdshattuck@gmail.com>
Date: Sun, Jun 17, 2012 at 5:39 PM
Subject: Fwd: Professor Lessig's Republic, Lost
To: kim@wsj.com, Lawrence Lessig <lessig@pobox.com>
Dear Ms. Strassel and Professor Lessig,
I appreciate that Professor Lessig acknowledged my email.
Regarding Senator McConnell's "free speech" speech to the AEI on Friday, I hope that the speech will help instigate a national and Congressional debate on the issue of campaign finance, including whether and to what extent the right of free speech should include the right to speak anonymously, the extent to which corporations (and other organizations) need to have a constitutionally protected right of free speech, and whether and the extent to which more rigorous truthfulness standards should be applied to political speech (e.g. to political speech of corporations).
I hope Professor Lessig is looking for and will find a forum next week in which to make a reply to Senator McConnell. I hope The Wall Street Journal will take up debate.
Sincerely,
Rob Shattuck

---------- Forwarded message ----------
From: Lawrence Lessig <lessig@pobox.com>
Date: Sun, Jun 17, 2012 at 2:02 PM
Subject: Re: Professor Lessig's Republic, Lost
To: Robert Shattuck <rdshattuck@gmail.com>
thanks for sending this.

From: Robert Shattuck <rdshattuck@gmail.com>
Date: Wed, Jun 13, 2012 at 5:02 PM
Subject: Professor Lessig's Republic, Lost
To: kim@wsj.com
Cc: lessig@pobox.com
Dear Ms. Strassel,
I have been following your recent op/ed pieces such as The Corporate Disclosure Ruse.
In Republic, Lost Professor Lawrence Lessig says about campaign finance that “Practically every important issue in American politics today is tied to this ‘one issue,’" and the overriding agenda (invoking Thoreau) should be to attack “the root, the thing that feeds the other ills, and the thing that we must kill first.”
I don't know whether you will take the time to answer this email, but I would like to ask:
1. Where do you rank campaign finance as an important national issue that Congress, the President and the country should have a national debate about, with a view to the Congress, the President and the country "doing something" to change the current state of affairs related to campaign finance?
2. Do you, or does the Editorial Board, think this is an issue that should be raised by Obama and Romney in their Presidential campaigns?
I am an intensely interested citizen, as you may glean from my blog Voters' Victory in 2012.
I will understand if you cannot take the time to answer this email, but I wanted to ask anyway.
Thank you.
Sincerely,
Rob Shattuck
Birmingham, AL

Current summary

In this entry, which I will update periodically, I will report my current subjective sense of the situation regarding my efforts and what others are doing and how they are responding.

There is near overwhelming vastness to what is going on.  For this purpose, let's carve out those who are doing what they do politically because they are paid do it and could and would do the opposite politically if they were paid to do the opposite.  Excluding the mercenaries, there are thousands of organizations, millions of voters who are more than passive, and scores of important national problems and issues that citizens desire addressing politically.  It is easy to feel overwhelmed and lost in the maze.

There is great comfort in identifying with either the Democratic or Republican party, sticking with it, and not venturing to talk with and try to understand the other side.

The non-mercenary have their lives to tend to, and the time and effort they expend in the political arena gains them nothing in taking care of their obligations and responsibilities to their jobs and families.  In this regard, the non-mercenary are at a tremendous disadvantage in doing battle with the mercenary.

There are a lot of dedicated non-mercenaries who have toiled for years with scant reward for their efforts.  Some of them, such as the Libertarian Party and the Reform Party, are trying to build a third party that is significant.  I don't know when it was founded, but Citizens for Ethics and Responsibility in Washington probably feels that it has lost and not gained ground over the years in battling the Washington DC cesspool of corruption.

These non-mercenaries have a lot of experience with and knowledge about what they are up against that is deserving of respect regarding the decisions they make about how they deploy their limited resources in trying to achieve their objectives.

There is much commonality and overlap of objectives.  While I am an advocate of the joinder of forces against the common enemy, the missions and strategies are sufficiently different that a huge impediment exists to obtaining much in the way of effective joinder.

There are important issues other than that of campaign finance, and there seems little prospect of getting an organization like the Reform Party to put aside temporarily the other issues and exclusively dedicate itself temporarily to fixing campaign finance.

Even on campaign finance, there is a major impediment to unified action that organizations and their members have differing ideas about what should be done.

You can review the communications I have had with the various organizations, and you will, I think, understand why my current evaluation is that I have basically not persuaded anyone to take up with me in making my advocacy and I am doubtful of achieving any better success before November.

Free Speech For People

http://freespeechforpeople.org/

From: Robert Shattuck <rdshattuck@gmail.com>
Date: Sat, Jun 2, 2012 at 5:19 AM
Subject: freespeechforpeople.org
To: jclements@__________

Dear Mr. Clements,

I could not find a contact email address on the website, so I searched and found your above office email address.

I am very interested and active, as you can discern from my own blog Voters' Victory in 2012.

I would like to focus on the Free Speech for People survey of support that shows: Democrats - 87%: Independents - 82%; Republicans -68%.

I would like to contrast that with the the list of State Resolutions Introduced in Support of Amending the Constitution. On that list, all the state legislators who are listed as introducing bills show a Democratic party affiliation, except one legislator who shows an Independent affiliation, and there are no Republican state legislators shown as introducing bills.

I would like to ask you, what do you say to people who are moved to say, "well, Free Speech for People is just a front for Democrats who want to strengthen their hand in carrying out a Democratic Party agenda"?

Thank you.

Sincerely,
Rob Shattuck

nolabels.org

From: Robert Shattuck <rdshattuck@gmail.com>

Date: Fri, Jun 1, 2012 at 7:42 PM
Subject: Dear No Labels
To: backoffice@nolabels.org
Cc: "Independent Voting.org" <national@independentvoting.org>, David Collison <chairman@harriscountyrp.org>, Kaitlin Sopoci-Belknap <info@movetoamend.org>, Tim Cox <tc@goooh.com>


Dear No Labels (http://www.nolabels.org/),

Here are bottom line questions I put to independentvoting.org this morning:

Does the country have a big ailment in how its Congress gets elected, governs and stays elected, which ailment is of first priority for the country to have a national (and Congressional) debate about?  If so, does the sitting Congress owe it to the country to initiate and carry out such a debate and to make a responsive proposal to the country for the country's consideration?  Will Congress do that of its own accord?  If not, should the American people rise up in unison and demand that Congress have this debate and make a proposal and threaten Congress with eviction if it is not responsive to that demand of the American people?

No Labels, on its website, describes the bottom line problem as follows:

The government in Washington is no longer capable of solving the very real problems facing America. Before every election, our politicians make promises about how they will fix our tax system. Our immigration laws. Our schools. Our budget issues. But after every election, these promises are crushed under the weight of the same poisonous rhetoric and hyper-partisanship.
We, the American people, are the collateral damage of this partisan warfare, saddled with debts we can’t afford and an economy that no longer creates enough good jobs with good pay.

My diagnosis of the "poisonous rhetoric and hyper-partisanship" that crushes "the promises about how they [the politicians] will fix our [problems]" is set forth in my Thesis this way:

There is an "iron triangle" in Washington D.C. of lawmakers (both Republicans and Democratics), lobbyists, and special interest organizations, that profits enormously from tens of millions and hundreds of millions of dollars sloshing around in Washington in a cesspool of, call it what you want, "influence peddling," "government for sale," or just plain corruption.
This "iron triangle" finds the political divisions, polarization and gridlock, in which every issue can be turned into a life and death, us against them, battle, as very advantageous for preserving their positions and riches. This distracts the citizens from the rampant corruption going on in Washington and associated failures in Congressional performance and keeps the voters from uniting to take action against the corrupt participants in the Washington cesspool.

Is there common ground here for organizations such as the Reform Party, GOOOH, Move To Amend, independentvoting.org, and No Labels, to speak with a united voice and increase their influence?  I sure wish that is the case.

Thank you.

Sincerely,

Rob Shattuck

Birmingham, ALL  

independentvoting.org

From: Robert Shattuck <rdshattuck@gmail.com>
Date: Fri, Jun 1, 2012 at 5:17 PM
Subject: Re: Is independentvoting.org receptive to the below message
To: "Independent Voting.org" <national@independentvoting.org>
Cc: bob friedman <_________>, markbodenhausen <________>

Thank you, Gwen. I look forward to finding ways to pressing our issues jointly.
Rob

On Fri, Jun 1, 2012 at 2:27 PM, Independent Voting.org <national@independentvoting.org> wrote:

Yes, yes, and yes. Perhaps you'd find our campaign calling on Congress to hold hearings into the second class status of independents a helpful tool for engaging these issues. I'm sure Bob can tell you all about it and also check out the link to the "campaign" page and it's accompanying spokesperson training page through our website. And of course, lets stay in touch.

Gwen

On Fri, Jun 1, 2012 at 5:15 AM, Robert Shattuck <rdshattuck@gmail.com> wrote:

Thank you very much for the reply, Gwen.

First, yes, Harry Kresky's article is very interesting.

Here are my bottom line questions to independentvoting.org: Does the country have a big ailment in how its Congress gets elected, governs and stays elected, which ailment is of first priority for the country to have a national (and Congressional) debate about? If so, does the sitting Congress owe it to the country to initiate and carry out such a debate and to make a responsive proposal to the country for the country's consideration? Will Congress do that of its own accord? If not, should the American people rise up in unison and demand that Congress have this debate and make a proposal and threaten Congress with eviction if it is not responsive to that demand of the American people?

I think you know my answers to the foregoing questions and what I am trying to do, to wit, contact organizations such as independentvoting.org and try to ask them the foregoing questions and ask whether the organizations wish to join their voices with other organizations and persons in attempting to make the foregoing demand on Congress effectively.

I will stay in touch with independentvoting.org about this.

Sincerely,
Rob Shattuck


On Thu, May 31, 2012 at 5:01 PM, Independent Voting.org <national@independentvoting.org> wrote:

Hi Rob,

Receptive yes, but I think where we would advocate applying the pressure differs. Our focus would be on engaging the partisan nature of the process which locks out a vast portion of the voters (in particular independents). While it sounds nice, and certainly seems to be a good rallying point for those who are sick and tired of the inequities between those who have resources and those who don't, "getting the money" out of the politics is both fruitless given the current nature of our society and impotent without restructuring politics. In order to do that, we feel you have to work on opening up the process to new voices and coalitions.

Here's an article that appeared a while back in The Huffington Post by our counsel Harry Kresky which I think you might find of interest in this regard.

http://www.huffingtonpost.com/harry-kresky/an-independent-look-at-ca_b_548894.html

Hope you find this helpful.

Gwen Mandell



From: Robert Shattuck <rdshattuck@gmail.com>
Date: Thu, May 31, 2012 at 4:28 AM
Subject: Is independentvoting.org receptive to the below message
To: national@independentvoting.org
Cc: bob friedman <_______>, markbodenhausen <__________>

Dear Nancy and Gwen,

Would you please read this Voters' victory in 2012 blog entry of mine and advise me whether independentvoting.org is receptive to the message I am trying to purvey to voters and would be willing to express support for what I am doing?

Thank you.

Sincerely,
Rob Shattuck
Birmingham, AL

Vote Out Incumbents Democracy

Vote Out Incumbents Democracy (VOID) is an organization which has the motto, "End the corruption. Reform the politics. VOID Incumbents !"

Its President David R. Remer wrote on the VOID website on April 30th the following:

Freedom to choose is meaningless when the choices are corrupt and inept. Liberty is meaningless when opportunity is controlled and bought up by the wealthiest. Athenians and Cleisthenes understood these truths in the 6th century B.C., and their revolution opened the door to democracy for mankind.

It is pathetic that the American people are tolerating a paralyzed Congress, unwilling to put political appetites aside in order to save our people's future. And worse, still, that the majority continue to vote for the political parties that are killing the future for most Americans. Does America have to fail before the people recognize that the political parties are killing our future?

Buddy Roemer

From: Robert Shattuck <rdshattuck@gmail.com>
Date: Sat, May 19, 2012 at 8:12 AM
Subject: Re: Amend the First Amendment to end corruption and gridlock
To: Carlos Sierra <carlos.sierra@buddyroemer.com>


Dear Carlos,

I am following up on our below email correspondence.

I am undertaking to solicit that members and supporters of like minded organizations, such as GOOOH, the Reform Party, and Move To Amend, together with independents, disaffected Democrats and Republicans, and candidates who are challenging incumbents, to endeavor to speak and act in a unified way in 2012, with the goal of  forcing Congress, before November, to conduct a national debate about whether there is a broken and corrupt campaign finance system that is badly in need of fixing and forcing Congress to make a proposal to the American people about what should be done to make the system better, which proposal would be the subject of a national referendum in the November elections.

For more information, please see my blog Amend By November.   

If my effort appeals to Buddy and he would like to lend his name to what I am doing, please let me hear from you again.

Sincerely,

Rob Shattuck 

On Mon, Jan 16, 2012 at 3:52 AM, Robert Shattuck <rdshattuck@gmail.com> wrote:

Thank you very much for this reply, Carlos.

I know the Reform Party is very interested in Governor Roemer, and I am copying the Chairman of the Reform Party National Committee on this email.

Sincerely,

Rob Shattuck

On Mon, Jan 16, 2012 at 2:29 AM, Carlos Sierra <carlos.sierra@buddyroemer.com> wrote:

Robert,

The Governor asked me to pass on his well wishes to you and your campaign. Please continue to spread the message of ending corruption.

From: Robert Shattuck [mailto:rdshattuck@gmail.com]
Sent: Wednesday, January 11, 2012 12:19 PM
To: Carlos Sierra
Subject: Amend the First Amendment to end corruption and gridlock

Dear Buddy,

I am trying to run as an independent candidate for the United States House of Representatives from the Alabama 6th Congressional District. 

My platform is to end corruption and gridlock in Washington DC. The main plank in my platform is amending the First Amendment to be applicable only to human beings. See my National battle plan and Join the debate. 

Everyone who seeks to end corruption and gridlock in Washington DC should be working on amending the First Amendment to be applicable only to human beings.

Thank you.

Sincerely,

Rob Shattuck

Birmingham, AL

Buddy Roemer

From: Robert Shattuck <rdshattuck@gmail.com>
Date: Sat, May 19, 2012 at 8:12 AM
Subject: Re: Amend the First Amendment to end corruption and gridlock
To: Carlos Sierra <carlos.sierra@buddyroemer.com>


Dear Carlos,

I am following up on our below email correspondence.

I am undertaking to solicit that members and supporters of like minded organizations, such as GOOOH, the Reform Party, and Move To Amend, together with independents, disaffected Democrats and Republicans, and candidates who are challenging incumbents, to endeavor to speak and act in a unified way in 2012, with the goal of  forcing Congress, before November, to conduct a national debate about whether there is a broken and corrupt campaign finance system that is badly in need of fixing and forcing Congress to make a proposal to the American people about what should be done to make the system better, which proposal would be the subject of a national referendum in the November elections.

For more information, please see my blog Amend By November.   

If my effort appeals to Buddy and he would like to lend his name to what I am doing, please let me hear from you again.

Sincerely,

Rob Shattuck 

On Mon, Jan 16, 2012 at 3:52 AM, Robert Shattuck <rdshattuck@gmail.com> wrote:

Thank you very much for this reply, Carlos.

I know the Reform Party is very interested in Governor Roemer, and I am copying the Chairman of the Reform Party National Committee on this email.

Sincerely,

Rob Shattuck

On Mon, Jan 16, 2012 at 2:29 AM, Carlos Sierra <carlos.sierra@buddyroemer.com> wrote:

Robert,

The Governor asked me to pass on his well wishes to you and your campaign. Please continue to spread the message of ending corruption.

From: Robert Shattuck [mailto:rdshattuck@gmail.com]
Sent: Wednesday, January 11, 2012 12:19 PM
To: Carlos Sierra
Subject: Amend the First Amendment to end corruption and gridlock

Dear Buddy,

I am trying to run as an independent candidate for the United States House of Representatives from the Alabama 6th Congressional District. 

My platform is to end corruption and gridlock in Washington DC. The main plank in my platform is amending the First Amendment to be applicable only to human beings. See my National battle plan and Join the debate. 

Everyone who seeks to end corruption and gridlock in Washington DC should be working on amending the First Amendment to be applicable only to human beings.

Thank you.

Sincerely,

Rob Shattuck

Birmingham, AL

Congressional candidates

A linchpin in carrying out the strategy is persuading Congressional candidates in the 2012 elections to make it a central issue in their respective campaigns that Congress, before November, needs to conduct a national debate about whether there is a broken and corrupt campaign finance system that is badly in need of fixing and Congress needs to make a proposal to the American people about what should be done to make the system better, which proposal would be the subject of a national referendum in the November elections.   Candidates would need to state their views to their voters.

As and when headway is made in persuading Congressional candidates to do the foregoing, information about the same will be posted in other entries in this blog.  For the time, being this will be done by creating entries for individual states and posting information on candidates in the state, with a link in this entry to the entry for the individual state.

As of this moment, there is no blog entry for any state and no link to that entry in this blog entry.

Move To Amend

[form of email sent to local MTA organizers]

From: Robert Shattuck <rdshattuck@gmail.com>
Date: Mon, Jun 18, 2012 at ___AM
Subject: Mitch McConnell's "free speech" speech last Friday
To:__________

Dear Local MTA organizer,

Mitch McConnell gave a speech to the American Enterprise Institute on Friday that received publicity over the weekend and will probably receive more publicity this week. You can find the Washington Post's Saturday story here.

I consider the speech as an opportunity for significantly raising the public debate level on campaign finance. The particular message I have been disseminating by means o f posting comments on newspaper stories and blogs and the like is this:

On the matter of campaign finance, there are probably millions of voters who now agree with Harvard Law Professor Lawrence Lessig that “Practically every important issue in American politics today is tied to this ‘one issue [campaign finance],’" and the overriding agenda (invoking Thoreau) should be to attack “the root, the thing that feeds the other ills, and the thing that we must kill first.”
It can be well hoped that Senator McConnell's speech will help instigate a national and Congressional debate on the issue of campaign finance, including whether and to what extent the right of free speech should include the right to speak anonymously, the extent to which corporations (and other organizations) need to have a constitutionally protected right of free speech, and whether and the extent to which more rigorous truthfulness standards should be applicable to political speech (e.g. to political speech of corporations).

I hope local MTA organizers will find their own ways to utilize McConnell's speech as an opportunity for significantly raise public awareness of MTA's cause.

Sincerely,
Rob Shattuck
Birmingham, AL

From: Robert Shattuck <rdshattuck@gmail.com>
Date: Sat, May 19, 2012 at 5:18 AM
Subject: Re: Urging Congressional challengers to raise issue
To: Move to Amend <info@movetoamend.org>

Dear Alex,

Thank you for your below reply email.

I am undertaking to solicit that members and supporters of like minded organizations, such as GOOOH, the Reform Party, and Move To Amend, together with independents, disaffected Democrats and Republicans, and candidates who are challenging incumbents, to endeavor to speak and act in a unified way in 2012, with the goal of  forcing Congress, before November, to conduct a national debate about whether there is a broken and corrupt campaign finance system that is badly in need of fixing and forcing Congress to make a proposal to the American people about what should be done to make the system better, which proposal would be the subject of a national referendum in the November elections.

For more information, please see my blog Amend By November.

I appreciate that MTA, as a 501c3, is subject to certain political activity limitations.  I hope MTA can nonetheless find ways to contribute to advancing the stated goal.

Thank you.

Sincerely,

Rob Shattuck

On Thu, Apr 26, 2012 at 1:17 PM, Move to Amend <info@movetoamend.org> wrote:

Robert,

We do not have a problem with you trying to organize a Move to Amend group in Alabama. As a 501c3 MTA cannot participate in electioneering so our groups cannot support or oppose candidates.

All the best

Alex

--
Move to Amend Coalition
http://www.MoveToAmend.org
(707) 269-0984

Start a Move to Amend group in your local community! Click here to get started - http://movetoamend.org/start-group

End Corporate Rule. Legalize Democracy. Move to Amend.

We're on Facebook & Twitter!

On Thu, Apr 19, 2012 at 6:06 AM, Robert Shattuck <rdshattuck@gmail.com> wrote:

Alex,

Do you have any problem if I contact other local MTA organizers, tell them what I am doing in the Alabama 6th Congressional District to try to get the challenger to raise the issue, suggest the other organizers should do similarly, and solicit trying to create synergy concerning the matter?

Thanks.

Rob Shattuck

On Wed, Apr 18, 2012 at 3:15 AM, Move to Amend <info@movetoamend.org> wrote:

Robert,

In the future, once we have built a strong infrastructure and organizational capacity, we plan to have congressional representatives take a position regarding MTA and corporate personhood.

We appreciate your support.

All the best,
Alex
--
Move to Amend Coalition
http://www.MoveToAmend.org
(707) 269-0984

Start a Move to Amend group in your local community! Click here to get started - http://movetoamend.org/start-group

End Corporate Rule. Legalize Democracy. Move to Amend.

We're on Facebook & Twitter!

On Sat, Apr 14, 2012 at 9:31 AM, Robert Shattuck <rdshattuck@gmail.com> wrote:

Dear Kaitlin,

Has Move To Amend given consideration to a nationwide campaign to urge Congressional challengers to raise the amendment issue against their incumbent opposition?  Below is an email I sent today to the Democratic challenger in my 6th Congressional District.  If Move To Amend was to undertake a national campaign, I would like to help on the same.

Sincerely,

Rob Shattuck

---------- Forwarded message ----------
From: Robert Shattuck <rdshattuck@gmail.com>
Date: Sat, Apr 14, 2012 at 10:07 AM
Subject: Fwd: Amending First Amendment
To: Penny Bailey <penny4al@gmail.com>


Dear Penny,

I hope you will consider making amending the First Amendment an issue in your 6th Congressional District campaign.  If you are prepared to do that, I would like to campaign on your behalf.

If you have any questions or would like to discuss the matter, please contact me.

Sincerely,

Rob Shattuck

---------- Forwarded message ----------
From: Robert Shattuck <rdshattuck@gmail.com>
Date: Mon, Feb 6, 2012 at 1:27 PM
Subject: Amending First Amendment
To: penny4al@gmail.com

Dear Penny, 

I am trying to get on the November ballot as an independent candidate for the United States House of Representatives from the 6th Congressional district. 

My platform is to end corruption and gridlock in Washington DC so that Congress can do a better job for the American people.  The main plank in my platform is to amend the First Amendment to be applicable to human beings only.    You may find more information about my candidacy on the web at http://al6thcongdist-ihaveuntiljan13.blogspot.com

I am sending you this email because I would like to find out how you feel about making amending the First Amendment an issue in your campaign.  Please email me or call me (967-5586) if we can have a discussion about this.

Thank you.

Sincerely,

Rob Shattuck

GOOOH

From: Tim Cox <tc@goooh.com>
Date: Mon, Jun 18, 2012 at 7:23 AM
Subject: RE: Vote Out Incumbents Democracy
To: Robert Shattuck <rdshattuck@gmail.com>, markh@goooh.com
Cc: drremer <drremer@gvtc.com>

We’ll be discussing after the FL and NY Primaries.

From: Robert Shattuck [mailto:rdshattuck@gmail.com]
Sent: Sunday, June 17, 2012 6:27 AM
To: Tim Cox; markh@goooh.com
Cc: drremer
Subject: Vote Out Incumbents Democracy

Dear Tim and Mark,

I invite you to take a look at this recent comment interchange I had with David R. Remer, the President of Vote Out Incumbents Democracy (VOID).
I would be interested in your reaction to the comment interchange.
I would also like to know where GOOOH stands in revamping its strategy, as has been referred to in previous emails between us.
Thanks.
Rob Shattuck

From: Robert Shattuck <rdshattuck@gmail.com>
Date: Thu, May 31, 2012 at 11:44 AM
Subject: Re: Time is running out
To: Tim Cox <tc@goooh.com>
Cc: markh@goooh.com

Thank you, Tim. Mark called me and we talked for fifteen minutes or so.

I think probably tens of millions of American voters think (or could be persuaded to think) our political system and Congress have failed the American people.

I put the bottom line question to Mark as, "Is GOOOH willing to join its voice with the voices of other organizations and persons who believe that the number one issue for the entire country is the foregoing failure of the political system and Congress, and who adamantly want to get accusatory of Congress about this, demand that Congress acknowledge that there has been failure on its part, and demand that Congress initiate a national (and Congressional) debate (before November) about the failure, and make a proposal to the American people (before November) about what should be done about the failure, and let American voters react to the proposal in their voting in November in their Congressional districts?"

I hope GOOOH decides it would like to join its voice with the voices of others. Please let me know if that is the case.

Sincerely,
Rob Shattuck


On Thu, May 31, 2012 at 10:24 AM, Tim Cox <tc@goooh.com> wrote:

I agree that the broken campaign finance system is a major problem, but I don’t consider it the root cause of the problem, which I am convinced is career politicians. You are proposing we “force” congress to fix a problem they have created via referendum, but many states don’t even allow referendums.

Maybe GOOOH isn’t the solution I had hoped it would be, we don’t yet have traction after five years, but I’m not ready to put all my efforts behind what I think you are proposing.

I’m listening, but concerned that maybe neither of us have found the right solution.


From: Robert Shattuck [mailto:rdshattuck@gmail.com]
Sent: Thursday, May 31, 2012 8:32 AM
To: Tim Cox
Cc: markh@goooh.com
Subject: Re: Time is running out

Thank you, Tim. Please take one minute to read Voters' victory in 2012, and you should be able to discern quickly the suggestions I have and decide whether it is worth taking any time to discuss anything with me from GOOOH's perspective.

Sincerely,
Rob Shattuck

From: Robert Shattuck <rdshattuck@gmail.com>
Date: Thu, May 31, 2012 at 4:17 AM
Subject: Re: Time is running out
To: Tim Cox <tc@goooh.com>
Cc: markh@goooh.com

Thank you for replying, Tim.

I have tried to look at the Texas primary election results, but have not been able to tell how the GOOOH candidates fared.

I think the links I have provided to you indicate suggestions I would have relative to a revamping you might do of GOOOH's strategy to try to raise GOOOH's profile and to advance GOOOH's cause both in 2012 and looking forward to 2014. I would be very pleased to engage with GOOOH on these suggestions if GOOOH desires.

Sincerely,
Rob Shattuck


On Tue, May 29, 2012 at 7:52 AM, Tim Cox <tc@goooh.com> wrote:

I’m not sure why Mark hasn’t responded, but I suspect he’s busy with today’s election.

We’re glad to see others fighting the battle. I hope you will engage with us as we try to revamp our strategy and move forward towards 2014. But, today, we are focused on our candidates in TX.

From: Robert Shattuck [mailto:rdshattuck@gmail.com]
Sent: Tuesday, May 29, 2012 7:05 AM
To: Tim Cox
Cc: markh@goooh.com; Eddie Traylor
Subject: Time is running out

Dear Tim,

I read your May 15th email and also noted GOOOH's Congressional challengers initiative to try to get all Congressional challengers to work together rather than alone.

I think GOOOH should be for every ordinary voter (per its Mission Statement: "If you are tired of career politicians, GOOOH is for you. If you believe money has corrupted Washington, GOOOH is for you. If you believe politicians have too much power, GOOOH is for you. If you are weary of the death grip the two parties have on our government, and are ready to return control of our government to the people, then GOOOH is for you.").

I have not heard back from Mark in response to my May 18th email that I copied you on.

If you haven't already done so, I hope you will read this entry in my blog and give me your thoughts.

Thank you.

Sincerely,
Rob Shattuck

From: Robert Shattuck <rdshattuck@gmail.com>
Date: Fri, May 18, 2012 at 5:56 PM
Subject: Fwd: GOOOH candidates and First Amendment movement
To: markh@goooh.com
Cc: Eddie Traylor <etraylor2012@gmail.com>, Tim Cox <tc@goooh.com>


Dear Mark,

I am following up on the below email correspondence we had in April.

I am endeavoring to solicit that members and supporters of like minded organizations, such as GOOOH, the Reform Party, and Move To Amend, together with independents, disaffected Democrats and Republicans, and candidates who are challenging incumbents, to endeavor to speak and act in a unified way in 2012, with the goal of  forcing Congress, before November, to conduct a national debate about whether there is a broken and corrupt campaign finance system that is badly in need of fixing and forcing Congress to make a proposal to the American people about what should be done to make the system better, which proposal would be the subject of a national referendum in the November elections.

Please read more about this in my blog Amend By November.  If you think there is a way to work this into GOOOH's 2012 agenda, I would very much like us to have the telephone conversation you suggested.

Sincerely,

Rob Shattuck 

---------- Forwarded message ----------
From: Robert Shattuck <rdshattuck@gmail.com>

Date: Thu, Apr 19, 2012 at 7:04 AM
Subject: Re: GOOOH candidates and First Amendment movement
To: markh@goooh.com
Cc: Eddie Traylor <etraylor2012@gmail.com>, Tim Cox <tc@goooh.com>


Good morning, Mark.

My telephone number is (205) 967-5586 begin_of_the_skype_highlighting            (205) 967-5586      end_of_the_skype_highlighting.  I am retired and am in the house a lot of the time.  I should be home all day today except for about an hour at about 12:30 (central time).  I usually screen my calls by listening to the answering machine, and, if you identify yourself in leaving a message, I will pick up if I hear you.

Rob Shattuck

On Wed, Apr 18, 2012 at 8:20 AM, <markh@goooh.com> wrote:

Hi Rob, 

Thank your for your interest in GOOOH.  I would very much like to speak with you regarding your movement.  Please forward a phone number and best time to reach you and perhaps we can work together to achieve a common goal.

Mark Hall

GOOOH National

Director - Leader Development

281-924-4083 begin_of_the_skype_highlighting            281-924-4083      end_of_the_skype_highlighting

---------- Forwarded message ----------
From: Robert Shattuck <rdshattuck@gmail.com>
Date: Mon, Apr 16, 2012 at 5:15 PM
Subject: GOOOH candidates and First Amendment movement
To: etraylor2012@gmail.com

Dear Mr. Traylor,

There is a growing national movement that has sprung up because hundreds of thousands of citizens around the country (Democrats, Republicans and independents alike) believe our nation’s campaign finance system is badly broken and corrupted, that it will not be fixed by Congress and the President on their own initiatve, and that only the grassroots pushing up will bring about needed change by demanding a constitutional amendment to the First Amendment.  For more information, see the website tp://movetoamend.org/

I think GOOOH candidates could utilize this issue very effectively..

I tried to get on the ballot as an independent candidate for the United States House of Representative in the Alabama 6th Congressional district but was not successful.  The main issue I pushed was essentially this First Amendment issue, and I am continuing my efforts in support of the First Amendment movement (see my website here). 

I would be interested in learning what GOOOH candidates think about this issue.  Please share your views with me if you would care to.

Thank you.

Sincerely,

Rob Shattuck

--

Thank you for supporting the Eddie Traylor for Congress! campaign.

IT IS TIME TO GET SERIOUS!

IT'S GOOOH TIME FOLKS!!

Have a great day!

Brad Herritage
Campaign Manager
Eddie Traylor for Congress!
Send all inquiries to etraylor2012@gmail.com or visit:
http://traylor.goooh.com

http://facebook.com/EddieTraylorforCongress
Visit and join www.goooh.com to eliminate career politicians!
Campaign Donations accepted by PayPal at:r

http://traylor.goooh.com  or by check at:
Eddie Traylor for Congress!
6046 FM 2920, Ste. #149
Spring, TX 77379

Reform Party

From: Robert Shattuck <rdshattuck@gmail.com>
Date: Fri, Jun 15, 2012 at 6:35 PM
Subject: Re: [PBC] What are you personally doing to try to advance the RP core cause?
To: Party Building Discussion <pbc@reformparty.org>

As regards Reform Party candidates, I have taken the liberty of sending the below message to the Reform Party hopefuls (I should say that, when I tried to post a comment on the candidates' webpage on the RP website, I got an error message saying "no CAPTCHA code submitted" but I could not see any CAPTCH code on the webpage to enter. I will report the same to David. If anyone thinks I should not have the problem, please let me know. I used the hopeful candidates' websites to send the below message):

[Message sent to RP Presidential hopeful candidates]

Dear ___,
The Reform Party's core cause statement from its website is this:
"At its core, the Reform Party is made up of concerned Americans, tired of the partisan rancor in government and a two-party system that appears committed to putting its support for the special-interests ahead of finding common-sense solutions designed to solve our most pressing challenges. "The people of the Reform Party are former Democrats, Independents, Libertarians and Republicans, who are coming together to form a viable political organization that can best represent both the will and the needs of the American people.
"Unlike other reformist organizations, the Reform Party is a political party and not a political action committee that supports candidates from other political parties. The Reform Party (nationally and through state parties) nominates and runs its own candidates to oppose the political institutions that continue to mismanage our government."
"The people of the Reform Party are former Democrats, Independents, Libertarians and Republicans, who are coming together to form a viable political organization that can best represent both the will and the needs of the American people.
I would like to know to what extent you subscribe to (or diverge from) the foregoing core cause. To the extent you subscribe to the same, I would be interested in learning the specifics of what you are doing and, as a candidate, would most do advance RP's core cause.
I would be further interested in your comments on my tack to try to advance RP's core cause, as it is explicated in my blog Voters' Victory in 2102 (URL http://al6thcongdist-ihaveuntiljan13.blogspot.com/) .
Thanks.
Rob Shattuck
Birmingham, AL

I am sorry to keep pressing on this, but this is what I believe in.
Sincerely,
Rob

On Fri, Jun 15, 2012 at 5:29 PM, Constantinos _________ wrote:

My contributions, particularly most recently, have been:
1. Trying to nominate a presidential candidate who will advance our platform, help build our party, and do as much as he or she can to gain as much popular support by September perhaps - as a longshot - to qualify for the general election debates and, at minimum, to gain national press coverage so as to tout our party.
2. Establishing a debate among all the RP presidential hopefuls.
3. Organizing all folks in Pennsylvania interested in being part of our national party.

On Fri, Jun 15, 2012 at 6:00 PM, Bev ___________ wrote:

Trying to find candidates to carry our message to the public is
at the top of my list (good candidates will attract more people
to the party, and faster than could be done without them).

Bev

--- On Fri, 6/15/12, Robert Shattuck <rdshattuck@gmail.com> wrote:

From: Robert Shattuck <rdshattuck@gmail.com>
Subject: [PBC] What are you personally doing to try to advance the RP core cause?
To: "Party Building Discussion" <pbc@reformparty.org>
Date: Friday, June 15, 2012, 7:44 AM

As most of you know, I am spending a lot of time on a specific tack to try to advance RP's core cause. See Voters' Victory in 2102. I have had individual discussions with PBC members about my tack. Link.
Below is the Reform Party's core cause statement from the website.

At its core, the Reform Party is made up of concerned Americans, tired of the partisan rancor in government and a two-party system that appears committed to putting its support for the special-interests ahead of finding common-sense solutions designed to solve our most pressing challenges.
The people of the Reform Party are former Democrats, Independents, Libertarians and Republicans, who are coming together to form a viable political organization that can best represent both the will and the needs of the American people.
Unlike other reformist organizations, the Reform Party is a political party and not a political action committee that supports candidates from other political parties. The Reform Party (nationally and through state parties) nominates and runs its own candidates to oppose the political institutions that continue to mismanage our government.

I would be interested in learning from PBC members of the specifics of what they are most trying to do to advance RP's core cause.
Thanks.
Rob Shattuck 

From: Robert Shattuck <rdshattuck@gmail.com>
Date: Fri, May 18, 2012 at 4:12 PM
To: [email address for Reform Party PBC]

Subject: Dear Reform Party: Would you consider it a political victory in 2012 

if the American voters could force Congress, before November, to conduct a national debate about whether there is a broken and corrupt campaign finance system that is badly in need of fixing and could force Congress to make a proposal to the American people about what should be done to make the system better, which proposal would be the subject of a national referendum in the November elections?

If this idea entices you, please read more in my blog Amend By November.

Thank you.

Sincerely,

Rob Shattuck

[BELOW IS EMAIL EXCHANGE WITH A REFORM PARTY MEMBER]

From: Robert Shattuck <rdshattuck@gmail.com>
Date: Mon, May 21, 2012 at 6:46 AM
Subject: Re: [PBC] Just to keep you advised of AL 6th Cong. District developments
To: ______________


That's a pretty realistic assessment, Bill.  This, however, is the only thing I can get myself motivated on.  There is a good chance I won't even bother to vote in November.

Rob

On Mon, May 21, 2012 at 6:19 AM, ____________ wrote:

Rob…I'd call it impossible, not unlikely

On May 20, 2012, at 4:23 PM, Robert Shattuck wrote:

Bill, the debate is supposed to be forced on Congress by the voters through their acting in unity pursuant to the Strategy.  I know the strategy is highly unlikely to get implemented, but that is the idea.

Rob

On Sun, May 20, 2012 at 2:44 PM, ____________ wrote:

Rob…

Congress doesn't have a constructive debate about the deficit.  Why would they about this?

On May 20, 2012, at 2:11 PM, Robert Shattuck wrote:

Thanks Bill.  I stand corrected in how I phrased myself about minority parties.

The idea of trying to force a debate is to give voters a concrete focal point and fulcrum for leverage against Congress and around which voters can coalesce in taking (or not taking) the unified action of voting incumbents out.  Without a focal point, all you will have is a lot of diffuse Brownian motion of tens of millions of voting decisions having vectors that cancel themselves out and that will have no effect in pushing forward a salient on the corruption front.

Best regards.

Rob

On Sun, May 20, 2012 at 12:51 PM, ______________ wrote:

Rob

I didn't say minor party's were like minded. Quite the contrary. As to the debate you suggest, totally unrealistic. The electorate can only force the issue by voting incumbents out.

Sent from my iPhone

On May 20, 2012, at 9:59 AM, Robert Shattuck <rdshattuck@gmail.com> wrote:

Thanks again Bill.

I believe you accurately articulate the impediments in trying to get minor political parties and other organizations that are similarly minded to join forces and act in concert in order to increase their political power and effectiveness.  I further agree with your comment that success is potentially highly situational.

That's why my email to the PBC put the matter in the form of this question:

Would you consider it a political victory in 2012 if the American voters could force Congress, before November, to conduct a national debate about whether there is a broken and corrupt campaign finance system that is badly in need of fixing and could force Congress to make a proposal to the American people about what should be done to make the system better, which proposal would be the subject of a national referendum in the November elections?

In reacting to that question, one ought first decide about the primacy of the matter and whether one agrees with Lawrence Lessig that   “Practically every important issue in American politics today is tied to this ‘one issue,’ and the overriding agenda (invoking Thoreau) should be to attack “the root, the thing that feeds the other ills, and the thing that we must kill first.” 

I think a high percentage of American voters either agree with Professor Lessig or could be persuaded to agree with him.  That percentage could be as high as 90%.  Regardless of the percentage, nothing meaningful will happen unless that high percentage acts in unison to demand of Congress that something be done.

Next, however, comes the impediment you talk about.  Among the voters who agree with Professor Lessig, there are going to be lots of different ideas about what exactly should be done.  Those differing ideas and views have great potential for derailing concerted action.  

To prevent that derailment, I say, "Put it to Congress to have a national debate and let Congress make a proposal."   Whatever Congressional proposal comes out of the national debate, it will likely not completely satisfy a large percentage of voters who agree that something must be done.  All the voters, however, will have the satisfaction of Congress being forced to react to the voters and of having a vigorous national debate take place.  It  is not fanciful to think that, if that happens, a large percentage will say, "OK, I am willing to give that proposal a try."

To me that would be a stupendous political victory for American voters in 2012.

I will continue in my efforts as outlined in my blog.  Unless you object, I am going to post in the Reform Party entry some of this email correspondence I have had with you.  If you object, let me know and I won't post it.

Sincerely,

Rob

On Sat, May 19, 2012 at 4:28 PM, ____________ wrote:

Rob, again some of these are national issues to take up with David.  But in general many attempts have been made to pull the third party base together but it always seems to end up in gridlock.  Just because we are "third parties" doesn't mean we are any more compatible than Republicans or Democrats are.  Third party includes the Greens, Libertarians, Socialist, Reform, New Whig etc.  I think you'll find we have some things in common but it's not enough to encourage any kind of merger.  With respect to GOOH, I have spoken with some of their people and from my own personal perspective it seems to be a TParty movement.  All third party movements and organizations like GOOH have the same objective of ameliorating the government's current deficiencies by shifting the power base.  Beyond that however we have different views as to what should replace it. We all want a strong defense, a healthy economy, a balanced budget, a sound infrastructure, affordable health care and a good educational system.  How to go about accomplishing these objectives is why different parties exist.

As to your question on time frame, third party movements are generally dependent on a motivational figure that coalesces the group and the electorate.  Teddy Roosevelt, Ross Perot, Ralph Nader.  So the answer to your question is highly situational.  With the right candidate, we could move beyond "trivial" in an instant.

Hope that helps.

Bill

On May 19, 2012, at 4:54 PM, Robert Shattuck wrote:

OK, so then I guess you would be saying, Bill, that voters need to get with the Reform Party.

How would you say the cause is going in the Reform Party signing up members?  

Does the Reform Party have any time frame in which it thinks the Reform Party will have any non-trivial impact on the political landscape?  

What does the Reform Party think about joining forces with others?  Take just GOOOH for example.  Is anyone in the Reform Party reaching out to try to join forces with GOOOH?  If not, why not?

Sincerely,

Rob

On Sat, May 19, 2012 at 9:48 AM, ___________ wrote:

Rob

I don't think many would disagree that the system is broken.  That it is corrupt.  And that incumbency is a very big part of the problem.

Frankly, I'm in favor of voting against EVERY incumbent.  I don't see any other way to send the message.  We need term limits, we need money out of politics, we need restrictions on the length of any campaign.  For people to agree with this approach but leave their favorite candidate in office is not a solution.  Everyone has a favorite, and as a result the incumbent success rate remains high.   We have to drain the swamp.  Both sides however live in the swamp and they both need to go.

On May 19, 2012, at 10:21 AM, Robert Shattuck wrote:

Fair enough, Bill.  Would you mind reading Thesis and Strategy and tell me what you think?

Thanks.

Rob

On Sat, May 19, 2012 at 6:40 AM, _____________ wrote:

Rob…I'm not sure what you are asking me.  This is a compilation of our prior correspondence..

On May 18, 2012, at 6:00 PM, Robert Shattuck wrote:

Dear Bill,

I am following up on the below email correspondence we had in January.   A few minutes ago, I sent this email to the Reform Party PBC email address.  I don't know whether the email will get through to you, so I am sending you this email directly.

If there is anything here that interests you, please get back to me.

Thank you.

Rob Shattuck

[ FURTHER EMAIL EXCHANGE]

From: Bill Dopf <____________>
Date: Wed, May 30, 2012 at 6:42 AM
Subject: Re: [PBC] Healthcare and the uninsured
To: Party Building Discussion <___________>

I think Rob's got a good point re the Move to Amend movement.

Beside being the right thing to do, endorsing this as a political party might give us some press on their website.

On May 30, 2012, at 5:23 AM, Robert Shattuck wrote:

Thank you for replying again, Mark.

My interest in, and hope for, "reform" began, I think, in 1992 with Ross Perot.  I have persisted in "activism" in various ways for the past 20 years, notwithstanding that I think no progress has been made on the "reform" front and I think that which I would like to see "reformed" has gotten worse.  I have no expectation or belief that the next ten years will be any better for "reform" than the past twenty years has been.

Even though I believe there is not going to be success by either the Reform Party or by myself, I will leave you a representative fact to chew on.  This MoveToAmend webpage says 201,311 persons have signed their petition.  I don't know how many members the Reform Party has now.  The Reform Party may choose that it in no way wishes to engage with the Move To Amend organization (and vice versa) in order to try to increase their influence and effectiveness in combination.

In my view, absent combination, there is only futile flailing that will go on for many years.  Everyone, of course, is entitled to their own view.

I will continue with my form of activism, including pointing out things like the above concerning the MoveToAmend organization.  (GOOOH, for example, purports to have about 85,000 members I believe.  Again, the Reform Party and GOOOH can choose not to engage with one another, and I will say, "Keep on flailing, guys and gals.")

Good talking to you, Mark.

Sincerely,

Rob Shattuck

On Tue, May 29, 2012 at 8:39 AM, Mark Kravis ______ wrote:

Fair Question.

I and some others in the Party advocate for a foundational process. We believe that the Party should proceed to build a significant base in each state of dedicated Reform Party members.  Opposing the idea of bringing in a popular convert from another Party.  We believe that building this base will bring in a candidate who comes from the Reform Party.  This process would be slower than most would want. Probably two more cycles at least, but it would change the political landscape in a big way.   

Definition   /     Change this all

 = The willingness of a majority citizens who agree to vote for candidates who have a plan in detail of what they would do.  To disqualify any candidate who promises to enact laws that contradict another promise (double talk) , To disqualify  liars at any level, to disqualify flip floppers (They can endorse someone else if they are true) , To agree to let other plans be heard from regular citizens. Etc.

Lastly I still disagree that the root problem is what you believe it is , so its likely we will not agree on to much. 

MK

I am not clear what concrete program of political action you are advocating in order "to change this all" or even what you envision for the changed situation to be like.  

If you were trying to gain me as an adherent and supporter of your political agenda, I think you would have to be more definite about what you are seeking and how to get there; and that would be way before you got to dealing with the inertia ("acceptance") of the rest of the public.

The Reform Party has this list of issues, many of which I agree with.  Which do you agree with?

How to achieve progress on those issues should be a main concern of the Reform Party.  I hope and trust the Reform Party, in considering how to be most effective and make the most progress, is giving due consideration to the "root problem" that Professor Lessig and others talk about.

Sincerely,

Rob Shattuck

On Mon, May 28, 2012 at 8:52 AM, Mark Kravis _____________ wrote:

Robert, I disagree with you and Larry Lessig.  The issue of lobbyists is a symptom. A symptom of our aristocracy. In the end everything comes down to the people doing the work. A country of laws is only as good as its interpretation and leaving that to just elite college graduates  is one of the major problems. We also have a bigger problem of the public allowing this with the acceptance of double talk, over promising and lies.  We have an inbreeding issue. Same old teachers , same old ideas and the worst is the notion that all other are to stupid to do the job. In the end I guess we are, because we have the ability to change this all, but no one will do it.  America will get what it deserves! (prosperity or diminishing quality of life) 

MK

On May 26, 2012, at 8:03 AM, Robert Shattuck wrote:

Dear Scott,

The United States is confronting some huge problems, including that of providing good and affordable health care to its citizens. 

Many reputable commentators and ordinary citizens think there is an egregious failure of Congress to do the job it should be doing to help the country address its very serious problems, and they trace this to a root problem of corruption in the campaign finance system (and related phenomena such as the revolving door between Congress and lobbyists and special interest organizations, gerrymandering, and earmarks). 

Harvard Law Professor Lawrence Lessig, in his recent book Republic, Lost, writes that “Practically every important issue in American politics today is tied to this ‘one issue,’ and the overriding agenda (invoking Thoreau) should be to attack “the root, the thing that feeds the other ills, and the thing that we must kill first.”  

I agree with Professor Lessig about the primacy of the corruption problem and am advocating to American voters this course of action in 2012.  I hope this advocacy is something you will pass along to Reform Party candidates in Illinois for their consideration.

Thank you.

Sincerely,

Rob Shattuck

On Sun, Apr 1, 2012 at 8:19 PM, ReformPartyIL ____________ wrote:

All,

A week ago I posted a few facts:

This one in particular stands out –

“That 50% of the health care cost (equals $1.3 Trillion in 2011) was USED by a mere 5% of the population.”

Now here is another greatly understated fact –

“Uninsured Americans COST was estimated to be about $49 Billion in 2010.”

++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++

What these statistics imply (some might say prove), is that the cost of health care services inflation in

fact, has nothing to do with the uninsured at all.  The math shows that the uninsured represents a mere 1.88% of the

total ($2.6 Trillion) spend on health care in America.

++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++

Politics have hidden the core elements of the health care cost inflation.  Politicians have been flat out lying

to the American people to move forward politically motivated agendas.

True – Obamacare does have a few nuggets of meaningful reform to it.   But the bulk of this legislation

does nothing to address root causes to why health care costs are so inflated.

The legislation must address the 5% of the users and every component that can be attributed to this group,

including medical devices, drugs, end of life care, surgical procedures, hospice care vs. intensive care, and so on.

++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++

Mandating that you must buy health insurance WILL NOT solve the problem.  It will only increase the

problem, pushing more unnecessary visits into the system because the user will feel obligated to use

what he has been forced to purchase.

++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++

This, I believe should be the basis for a Reform Party solution.

What say you all?  Can you refute the facts presented, the analysis or the conclusion?

Best Regards,

Scott Smith

Reform Party