NOVEMBER 5, 2014: Act to defeat the money monster in politics, end the perpetual political war, and fix a failed Congress in Washington.
FEBRUARY 8, 2020: Seeking to be Independent candidate in AL 6th Cong'l district.
CLICK on label "A. Current status" below right.
{To help me with a sense of the job of a Congressman, I have read and am thinking about the below letter that Congressman Brooks has on the front page of his campaign website.]
A Letter from Congressman Brooks
For more than a year now, I have had the privilege of serving as your Congressman. We have faced some tough challenges together during this year – devastating tornadoes, continuing attacks on freedom and free enterprise, and Washington’s out of control spending. As I witnessed first-hand during the aftermath of last year’s tornadoes, Americans are a remarkably strong and resilient people who are capable of solving big problems.
During this last year, my staff and I have been able to assist hundreds of people with problems navigating the federal bureaucracy. I have spoken with thousands of you at dozens of town halls and hundreds of other meetings across the district. Tens of thousands of people from the 5th District have participated in our telephone town halls. These two-way dialogs are extremely important to our representative government.
During this year, I have consistently voted for legislation to stimulate job creation by reducing excess government regulation and other legislation that attempted to repeal ObamaCare. I have consistently voted to support our troops and keep our national defense strong. I have consistently supported efforts to reduce out-of-control spending, balance the budget, and protect Social Security. And, since I was elected, my staff and I have dramatically reduced spending by the 5th District Congressional office.
As part of my service on the House Armed Services Committee, I have visited with our troops in Iraq and Afghanistan, as well as on ships and bases throughout the world. I am honored to be the first 5th District Congressman to serve on the House Armed Service Committee, which is a major asset for North Alabama. As part of my service on the House Space, Science and Technology Committee, I have fought to promote NASA and defend other critical science programs such as the National Science Foundation.
Contrary to House Leadership wishes, I stood strong and voted against final passage of the Budget Control Act that created the “Super Committee”, disproportionately cuts national defense, and increases America’s debt burden by $2+ trillion. While I prefer to vote with my GOP leadership, and have done so 93% of the time (according to the Washington Post Congressional Scorecard), my first obligation is to America. I vote accordingly.
I will continue to stand firm for defending our liberties preserved in the Bill of Rights and the Constitution, for a strong national defense, for bringing our out-of-control federal spending under control, and for solving the problem with illegal aliens.
America is the greatest nation in history. And now is the time when our county needs us to do our part to solve some tough problems and keep America as the envy of the world.
Thank you for the privilege of serving as your Congressman. I ask for your continued support and encouragement.
I trust it is acceptable for the candidates to pass on to you what they think the important issues are that ought to be raised in the forum.
In that vein, I wish to tell you what I think is most important and that I am making central to my platform.
To wit, I think that, in Washington DC, there is NOT government of the people by the people, and for the people. I further think that the causes of that condition are also causes of Congress being dysfunctional and not being able to do its job properly for the American people. This should have primacy and urgency for the American people, because, until the situation is corrected, there will be continue to be great failures to act by Congress and/or great errors in actions it does take. For further discussion, please go here.
If other candidates also think the foregoing has primacy and urgency for the American people, the hard part is figuring out what to try to do to change the status quo. I am in the process of formulating my views, and others could have different ideas, all of which might make for extended discussion in the forum.
If the other candidates do not think the matter is of primacy and urgency for the American people, let them say so, and little time need be taken up at the forum by the topic.
Please note that I have copied the other candidates on this email except I don't have Scott Beason's and Tom Vigneulle's email addresses.
There are several organizations that are focused on campaign finance as the biggest problem that the country needs to do something about. Let me try to list these, with links to their websites and also a statement of their basic stance taken from their home pages.
Move To Amend "We, the People of the United States of America, reject the U.S. Supreme Court's Citizens United ruling and other related cases, and move to amend our Constitution to firmly establish that money is not speech, and that human beings, not corporations, are persons entitled to constitutional rights."
Rootstrikers "End the system of corruption in Washington" "Only the people can force lasting change on this broken system."
Demand Progress grassroots democracy intiative "The Grassroots Democracy Act would make politicians reliant on ordinary voters -- not the super wealthy who fund campaigns today. Ask your lawmakers to sign on as supporters."
OpenSecrets.org "An independent, nonpartisan, nonprofit organization, the Center for Responsive Politics does not advocate for specific legislation or regulations in any area - with one important exception: Transparency." "Since real accountability requires access to information, we strongly support and will urge passage of legislation and rules that will make it easier for Americans to stay informed about the electoral process, what our elected officials are doing, and why."
Organizations not focused on money and politics
No Labels "No Labels is a growing citizens’ movement of Democrats, Republicans and independents dedicated to promoting a new politics of problem solving." "We are unlike any organization in America. The most powerful interest groups in our nation’s capital work to push our leaders and our political parties apart. No Labels is working to bring them together to forge solutions to our nation’s problems".
No Labels has over thirty specific proposals for improving the government, which No Labels puts in three categories of make government work, make Congress work, and make the Presidency work. These proposals are listed below.
Make Government Work
NO BUDGET, NO PAY
If Congress cannot pass a budget and all annual spending bills on time, members should not get paid.
TAKE THE TIME, SAVE THE DIME
Move to a two-year budgeting process.
DON'T DUPLICATE, CONSOLIDATE
Get rid of duplicate agencies and programs identified in 2013 by the Government Accountability Office.
BUY SMARTER AND SAVE
Enforce strategic sourcing so that separate divisions within a single federal agency do not make independent contracts for common items.
NO ADDING, NO PADDING
Stop assuming automatic year-to-year spending increases in agency budgets.
21ST CENTURY HEALTHCARE FOR HEROES
Merge the electronic health records of the Department of Defense with the Department of Veterans Affairs.
STAY IN PLACE, CUT THE WASTE
Cut 50 percent of agency travel and replace it with video conferencing.
WASTED ENERGY, WASTED DOLLARS
Reduce energy waste in federal buildings by incentivizing private companies to identify energy savings. The contractors would be paid with the dollars saved instead of with taxpayer dollars.
PLAN FOR EFFICIENT AND EFFECTIVE GOVERNMENT
Create a new Commission for Government Transformation to oversee and effect the transformation of various federal government programs so they will be more economical, efficient and effective.
Make Congress work
No Budget, No Pay
If Congress can't pass a budget and all annual spending bills on time, members of Congress should not get paid.
Up or Down Vote on Presidential Appointments
All presidential nominations should be confirmed or rejected within 90 days of the nomination.
Fix the Filibuster
Require real (not virtual) filibusters and end filibusters on motions to proceed.
Empower the Sensible Majority
Allow a bipartisan majority of members to override a leader or committee chair’s refusal to bring a bill to the floor.
Make Members Come to Work
Make Congress work on coordinated schedules with three five-day work weeks a month in DC and one week in their home district.
Question Time for the President
Provide a monthly forum for members of Congress to ask the president questions to force leaders to debate one another and defend their ideas.
Fiscal Report to Congress: Hear it. Read it. Sign it.
A nonpartisan leader should deliver an annual, televised fiscal update in-person to a joint session of Congress to ensure everyone is working off the same facts.
No Pledge but the Oath of Office
Members should make no pledge but the pledge of allegiance and their formal oath of office.
Monthly Bipartisan Gatherings
The House and Senate should institute monthly, off-the-record and bipartisan gatherings to get members talking across party lines.
Bipartisan Seating
At all joint meetings or sessions of Congress, each member should be seated next to at least one member of the other party.
Bipartisan Leadership Committee
Congressional party leaders should form a bipartisan congressional leadership committee to discuss legislative agendas and substantive solutions.
No Negative Campaigns Against Incumbents
Incumbents from one party should not conduct negative campaigns against sitting members of the opposing party.
Make Presidency work
Regular News Conferences for the President2
Fast-Track Legislative Authority for The President
Make The Parties Pay for Presidential Fundraising
A Line Item Veto With A Twist
Reduce the Number of Appointees Subject to Senate Confirmation6
Identify a "Slate That Can't Wait" of Critical Nominees For Expedited Confirmation
Up or Down Vote on Presidential Appointment8
Question Time for The President9
Expanded Presidential Power to Reorganize
Different Opinions, But the Same Facts
Regular Meetings Between The President And Congressional Leadership
[Email to the other candidates in AL 6th Congressional district]
Gentlemen:
My platform is that I think that, in Washington DC, there is not government "of, by, and for" the people, and that the causes of that condition are also causes of the much talked about dysfunctionality of Congress, which I believe is preventing Congress from properly doing its job for the American people.
Today, my attention was called to Congressman Brooks, and I read his letter appearing on the front page of his website here. I was struck by his statements in the letter about the extent of his diligence in working at providing service to his constituents.
My reaction to Congressman Brooks' statement about his service to his constituents was a a question to the effect of, "if every Representative in Congress is diligently serving their constituents the way you have been doing, how can I, in my platform, be contending that 'there is not government of, by, and for the people in Washington'?" And. further, how can it be said that Congress is dysfunctional?
I emailed Congressman Brooks with these questions and asked for his reaction.
Because this is what my platform is about, I am going to put this on my blog, and I solicit your respective reactions as well. (Please note that I am awaiting receiving email addresses for Scott and Tom.)
Thank you.
Sincerely,
Rob Shattuck
[my email to Congressman Brooks]
Dear Congressman Brooks,
I am a candidate in the 6th Congressional district Republican primary.
My platform is that I think that, in Washington DC, there is not government "of, by, and for" the people, and that the causes of that condition are also causes of the much talked about dysfunctionality of Congress, which I say is preventing Congress from properly doing its job for the American people. (For an elaboration of this, please see my platform campaign statement here.)
I have read your letter on the front page of your campaign website, in which I see how diligently you have worked at serving your constituents.
My reaction to your statement of your diligent work is a question to the effect of, "if every Representative in Congress is diligently serving their constituents as you have been doing, how can I, in my platform, be contending that 'there is not government of, by, and for the people in Washington?'" And. further, how can it be said that Congress is dysfunctional?
Do you have any reaction to these questions of mine?
Deciding what the country should do entails evaluating how "bad" the problem is for the American people.
The political class is most knowledgeable about the system (shaped by campaign finance) plays out in Washington. Many lawmakers deplore it. A starter question is, which lawmakers do not deplore it? All those who deplore it should issue statements to their constituents about how strongly they deplore it, why they deplore it, what they recommend be done, and what is their explanation about why Congress doesn't do something. All lawmakers who think the system is basically fine and need not be changed should issue rebuttal statements to the lawmakers who deplore the situation.
Perhaps Senators Shelby and Sessions, and retiring Representative Bachus, can give Alabamians both in and outside of the 6th Congressional district their views on this.
Pending hearing from some of Alabama's politicians who are in Washington and have the experience and understanding that is the best source of information, I will try to construct what is bad for the American people.
Let's give the example of health insurance companies. How much should the profitability of health insurance companies count in the Congressional decision making process about health care? Many thousands or tens of thousands of people are employed by health insurance companies, and so me consideration arguably can be given by Congress to not doing something that would shrink the size and profitability of health insurance companies, in order that employment for those employees will not be adversely affected.
By the same token, how much consideration should be given by Congress to stockholders of health insurance companies, and whether the value of their companies will be increased or decreased by health care reform laws that are passed? Again, some consideration might be legitimately given by Congress to what happens to the value of their stock, but I don't think much.
By and large, my view is that Congress should be paying attention to only how the American people are going to be affected in the cost and quality of their healthcare. To the extent keeping health insurance companies big and profitable is important for achieving cost and qualities goals in the health care of Americans, that is fine for Congress to take into account how health insurance companies will be affected by a health care law that is under consideration.
I don't think the foregoing is a fair evaluation of how it works in Washington. Health insurance companies are bargainers at the table to preserve, protect and promote their size and profitability. In my opinion, that is "bad" for the American people and is an example of government in Washington not being "of, by and for" the people, and of Congress being dysfunctional and unable to do its job properly for the American people.
If it is agreed that there is a big problem, the hard part is figuring out what the country should try to do about it.
Discussion, debate and compromise
My candidacy seeks to engender discussion and debate about what the country should try to make government in Washington "of, by and for" the people and to lessen the dsyfunctionality of Congress.
In the discussion and debate, I want to throw out for consideration my own ideas.
As discussed in the entry The dysfunctional Congress problem, the chief driver of the problem is huge costs of campaigns in Presidential, Senatorial, and House of Representatives elections and how the small donor class determines which persons will be viable candidates and have chances of winning elections in which voters do not have meaningful input about what their choices will be.
While the politicians will need to be forced by the voters, the voters need to be willing to accept that what some voters want to be done if those voters had their druthers would be greatly unacceptable to other voters. Voters having a most preferred change need to be willing to try to understand the concerns that other voters may have about that most preferred change,, try to see possible legitimacy in the concerns, and be willing to compromise.
Significant issues related to what to do
A. Right of free speech
I think much consideration needs to be given to the right of free speech.
The right of free speech is constitutionally enshrined, and it can be safely said that the Founding Fathers attributed value and importance to free speech of very high or the highest rank. Free speech is a tool that can help fight and protect against oppression by government and by members of society over one another. It can abet dissemination and consideration of valuable ideas for improving the society.
Some might like to create a system in which all citizens have equal ability to make speech of equal amplitude, and no citizen should be in a position to have speech that has greater amplitude than some other citizen. This is highly unrealistic and probably not even desirable.
There are plainly very great disparities in the amplitude that citizens are capable of regarding their speech. Public figures (including celebrities and politicians), those in the media (broadcasters, newspapers, reporters, etc.), and those with positions in large organizations allowing them to amplify their speech to others in or in contact with the organizations are notable examples of some members of society of being able to make speech that has much greater amplitude than most citizens. A person can amplify his or her speech by making personal efforts to amplify the same (write letters to the editor, send emails, participate physically in protest gatherings).
Also, one can amplify one's speech in spending money, such as paying for mailings, for media advertisement, for billboard and other physical advertising, and for phone banks.
I would suggest those who wish for all citizens to be able to have equal amplitude for their speech and who wish to limit the amplitude of the speech of some to more equalize amplitudes, such as by limiting the amount of money that can be spent to amplify speech) should think hard about the great disparities that exist in speech amplitudes (apart from the spending of money) and consider how fair and appropriate it is to pick the spending of money means of amplifying speech to be limited.
B. Anonymous speech; joint speech
An important subtopic in the free speech domain is whether and/or how anonymous speech and joint speech with others should be allowed and protected. [I will expand on this later.]
C. Public funding of election campaigns
The speech that is not to be abridged by the government under the First Amendment is the speech of the citizens. There is a legitimate concern that public funding of election campaigns may be done in a way that "abridges" the right of free speech of citizens, such as public funding that may be subject to increases by reason of the amount of spending of private money that a candidate does.
Those who are advocates of public funding of election campaigns should appreciate the foregoing legitimate concern.
[Temporary note to readers: I am organizing and editing. I have separate entries, one relative to there NOT being government "of, by and for" the people, and the other about the dysfunctional Congress problem. The entries may ultimately get consolidated. I am doing other editing on the two entries.]
How does the money monster make Congress dysfunctional?
There is much power and riches are to be had in Washington DC, and how great the desire for power and riches is for the many people who go to Washington DC to have and keep power and riches. These include lawmakers, lobbyists, and leaders of "special interest" organizations. This is not a universal judgment of the people in Washington DC, but the aggregate of all the desire for power and riches, and doing what is needed to preserve and increase the same, is a significant factor that contributes to preventing the achievement of government "of, by and for" the people and to the dysfunctionaliy of Congress (as will be elaborated below)..
A further harsh reality is the extent of seeking and having "top down" control in order to build, preserve and further enhance one's personal power and riches. This means much more falling into line with the wishes of those above one, and much less attunement to making government "of, by and for" the people.
Mention should also be made of the intense symbiotic relationship between the political class and the donor class. A harsh reality is the extent to which there is largely one political class (including both Republicans and Democrats) and one donor class, and there is intense rivalry within, and sometimes a resort to coercive tools, in the domain of the two classes. Those in the donor class are intent on winding up on the side of election winners, and those in the political class are intent on getting donors lined up with them, and if a donor does not line up, there is a threat of subsequent retribution against the donor. This symbiotic relationship contributes to undermining the achievement of government "of, by and for" the people.
While the political class gets their needed funding from the donor class, those in the political class still need to get votes to win and stay in office. To do this, it helps to keep the voters on their side riled up and angry, which leads to turning every issue into a life and death "us against them" matter. In short, divisiveness is beneficial to the political class. This impairs Congress in working together and in reaching compromises that government "of, by and for" the people is properly capable of.
The "us against them" mentality is also useful to the political class in eliciting booster donations from average voters on top of the funding from the donor class that the politicians mainly rely on.
The harsh realities contain a risk of the political class and their lobbyist cohorts and others growing their own role and importance and having more power and riches, to the detriment of the people which government is supposed to be of, by and for. Take, as an example, complexity versus simplicity of laws. From the point of view of the people, simpler laws might be better, but, from the point of view of lawmakers, lobbyists and others in DC, complex laws can be much better for their own personal interests. The more complexity there is in the law, the greater the lawmakers' ability to obtain political contributions, and the more opportunity there is for lobbyists to collect fees for lobbying about inrticacies in complex laws. The same can be said about the scope and reach of laws. Laws with less scope and less intrusiveness may be pretty good for the people, but lawmakers, lobbyists and others can personally benefit from laws having greater scope and reach.
Particularly deleterious consequences from the life or death, "us against them" mentality is a stalemate in which there is no compromise between the two sides, and the can gets kicked down the road for someone else to worry about.
The politicians are not going to fix this
I hope I have sufficiently delineated the harsh realities that make for government that is not "of, by and for" the people and that have resulted in a dysfunctional Congress, and I have sufficiently delineated the deleterious effects of the same, and that the combination has persuaded you that a high priority should be assigned to trying to fix these matters.
I further hope you have (or have gained) an appreciation of why the politicians are not going to act on their own, and it will take the citizens to force a meaningful change to be made. I will save for another entry discussion of making changes.
This entry portrays my campaign "at a glance." It is dynamic and will be revised on an ongoing basis. Links are given to other blog entries, which expand on this entry or give more campaign information. (You can get back to this entry from any other blog entry by clicking on the "A. My 2014 election (at a glance)" label to the right.)
[Update 5/11: After you have gone through this entry once, returning to this entry is probably not the best way to keep current with my campaign. One way to stay current is to click on the above blog name "Be An Alabama Rootstriker With Rob Shattuck". Entries will appear on the page in reverse chronological order, with the most recent entry at the top, and you can scroll down through entries going backwards in time to keep up with recent entries. Alternatively, you may use the "Blog Archive" tool at the right side of the page. Click on a month in the "Blog Archive" tool, and you will see a list of the entry titles for the entries made during the month.]
In early February, I filed papers and paid the filing fee to run in the Republican primary election for the Alabama 6th Congressional district. The primary election is on June 3, 2014. For a map of the 6th Congressional district, go here.
I filed my papers to run after sending these two letters to the Alabama GOP and Democratic parties.
The information packet for filing my papers alerted me to campaign financial reporting requirements and other electioneering rules that I needed to learn about and comply with. I made an initial determination that, until I exceed $5000 in campaign fundraising/spending, I am basically exempt.
I have started an entry Voter discussion and debate, in which I am quoting, on a non-identified basis, reactions and feedback I receive from voters about my campaign.
The Blount Countian provided a candidate profile questionnaire for me to respond to, which I did. I have posted my response in the entry The Blount Countian profile questionnaire.
I was one of four 6th Congressional district candidates who spoke at the Mid-Alabama Republican Club monthly meeting on March 8th. The other three candidates will be provided an opportunity to speak at the April or May monthly meeting.
The Shelby County Republican Women and Eagle Forum held a candidate forum for the 6h Congressional district candidates on March 21, 2014 in the auditorium at Westminster School at Oak Mountain Presbyterian Church. See my Eagle Forum video.
I did radio talk show interviews with Matt Murphy and Richard Dixon on April 2 and 4. You can listen to the interviews at Matt Murphy and Richard Dixon interviews.
The AL.com Editorial Board had a meeting with the candidates on April 21st. Following that meeting, AL.com submitted a question to each of the candidates, and requested that the candidate reply with a 600 word essay, to be posted on the AL.com website, with opportunity for reader interaction. Go to AL.com questions and answers. My essay answer to my question is posted on AL.com here, and I included a link back to a series of entries in this campaign blog, which series of entries can be accessed starting here.
As of May 11th, there has been a steadfast refusal of the other candidates to respond to my campaign charges or to comment on anything else I have said in my campaign, and the other candidates have essentially ignored me. This is documented in numerous entries in this campaign blog. Some of these entries can be found by going ot the entry Dear Cheryl re RWOT May 1 candidate forum and following links set forth in that entry.
Further, no panel moderator has asked any candidate to respond to my campaign charges or comment on anything else I have said in my campaign. Also, to my knowledge, no newspaper, radio talk show, or TV news has asked any of the other candidates to respond to my campaign charges or comment on anything else I have said in my campaign.
My campaign platform
My campaign is focused and unitary.
In brief form, my campaign statement is this::
My campaign charges that, in Washington DC, there is NOT government of the people, by the people, and for the people. My campaign further charges that the causes of that condition are also causes of Congress being dysfunctional and not able to do its job properly for the American people. I have posted these charges on the Internet, in an Open Letter to the Alabama Legislative Delegation in Washington The open letter can be found on the Internet at this link Open letter to Alabama delegation in Washington. Senator Shelby has made a non-response response to my charges. For more information, go to Response of Senator Shelby to open letter.. Neither Senator Sessions nor Representative Bachus has made a response to my open letter. The six other candidates in the 6th district (Scott Beason, Paul DeMarco, Will Brooke, Gary Palmer, Chad Mathis, and Tom Vigneulle) have thus far been silent about my charges. Voters in the 6th Congressional district should demand that the validity (or not) of my charges be debated by the candidates, and the voters should decide what they think about my charges and take their conclusions into account as they see fit in casting their vote on June 3rd.
I am endeavoring to press the other candidates in the 6th Congressional district. On February 27th, I sent this email message to them:
Dear Fellow 6th Congressional District Candidates (except Scott Beason, who has not provided me an email address): Senator Shelby's Washington office called me and provided me a telelphonic response to my "open letter" to the Alabama legislative delegation in Washington. I have memorialized Senator Shelby's response in this blog entry Senator Shelby's response to open letter. Senator Shelby's response to the open letter, it seems to me, provides no help in deciding whether my campaign platform has substantial validity for 6th district voters and whether debate about my campaign platform should or should not be considered important by the candidates and voters in the 6th district. It remains to be seen whether Senator Sessions or Representative Bachus will respond and help the 6th district candidates and voters in trying to decide whether my campaign platform is important to debate. Our lawmakers in Washington have the greatest knowledge and understanding about how the political system and Congress work in Washington, but if they are not forthcoming, the 6th district candidates and voters will need to try to understand and decide on their own, as best they can. I am continuing to develop in my blog my diagnosis and explication of why there is not government "of, by and for" the people in Washington and why Congress is dysfunctional and unable to do its job properly for the American people. I continue to urge that this should have primacy, because, until these conditions are improved, a dsyfunctional Congress will continue impaired and unable to act on good ideas for addressing the country's pressing problems. The country does not lack for good ideas, including good ideas that some of you began to present at the two candidate events that have taken place thus far. The problem is not lack of ideas, but rather a dysfunctional Congress. "Dysfunctionality" of Congress is not a brand new thing. Congress has been failing to do its job properly for the American people for more than a decade, and the failure is getting worse. In the vernacular, "cans" have been "kicked down the road" too long (i.e., Congress has failed to do its job properly to proactively manage pressing problems confronting the country), and there comes a point of abrupt and shocking externally driven developments (e.g., the rest of the world becoming unwilling to buy U.S. debt except at sky high interest rates, and the Federal budget becoming an ultimate nightmare), that largely dictate "solutions," and "management" of the problems is no longer in the hands of Congress. I continue to press the 6th district candidates to react to my campaign platform. Thus far, there seems to be only silence on your part. If I am overlooking something in your campaign that I can put on my blog as your view or position, please let me know. I have been strenuously exerting myself to publicize my platform to 6th district voters and will continue to do so. I hope you will express yourself at some point for the benefit of the voters.
1. Is it valid to say that, in Washington DC, there is NOT government of the people, by the people, and for the people? If there is not government "of, by and for" the people, what has caused that? (I have initiated giving my answers to these questions in my entry What is government "of, by and for" the people?.)
2. Are there causes of government NOT being "of, by and for" the people that are also causes of Congress being dysfunctional and not being able to do its job properly for the American people? (This question suggests I think there is a close connection here. I am working on my diagnosis of this in this entry The dysfunctional Congress problem.)
3. What is the primacy and urgency for the American people for improving the foregoing conditions, because, until the conditions are improved, there will be great failures to act by Congress and/or great errors in actions that are taken by Congress and government? (This calls for an evaluation of how "bad" the problem is. This will be covered in the other entries mentioned here.)
4. What should the country do to try to fix the problem? (I am working on this question in this entry: What the country should do.)
In this debate, it is pointed out there are many organizations and persons who believe that something is fundamentally broken in the political system, and they are making advocacy from a place outside of the Democratic and Republican parties. There are commonalities and there are differences in the advocacy that these organizations and persons are making. I too believe something is fundamentally wrong that the country needs to try to fix, and I have commonalities with these other organizations and persons. I will post information about these other organizations and persons, which can be accessed by clicking on label A4.1 Activities of others.
I believe the problem at bottom is the age old bugaboo of money in politics, and that this bugaboo has become a monster that is destroying the ideal of government of, by and for the people, and causing Congress to be dysfunctional and not able to do its job properly for the American people is.
I also say that I believe the First Amendment right of free speech is of paramount importance for the country, and I do not advocate a solution of public funding of elections that has the effect of abridging the right of free speech. I believe the money monster in politics can be tackled, while preserving the right of free speech.
In this debate, I think incumbent lawmakers are most knowledgeable about the problem, I have disseminated this Open letter to the Alabama legislative delegation in Washington to try to obtain their views about the problem. Currently, only Senator Shelby has responded, and his response was not enlightening. Go to Senator Shelby's response to open letter.
The political class in DC will not fix it
Central to my campaign platform is that the political class in Washington DC and the cohorts of the political class (lobbyists and others) personally benefit from there NOT being government of, by and for the people, and from the dysfunctionality of Congress and government.
Because of their personal benefit, the political class in Washington will not undertake of its own accord any serious examination of, and discussion and debate about, these matters that are of primacy and great urgency for the American people. Only the citizens, acting in concert, can force the political class to participate in a national debate about the same and to propose something to the American people to be tried to correct the problems.
What should the country do to try to fix the problem?
Deciding what the country should do entails first evaluating how "bad" the problem is for the American people.
If it is agreed that there is a "bad" problem, the hard part is figuring out what the country should do to try to "fix" the problem.
My candidacy seeks to engender discussion and debate about how "bad" the problem is for the American people and, based on that, what the country should do to try to make government in Washington "of, by and for" the people and to lessen the dsyfunctionality of Congress. I am developing my own thinking in the entry What the country should do.
Addressing the country's many other serious problems
I have described above and in the linked entry The dysfunctional Congress problem how the political class benefits from and exploits and exacerbates the dysfunctionality and engenders an "us against them" mentality, which turns every issue, and positions on issues, into being part of an "us against them" war. Dialogue, debate, and the taking of positions are warped. This must be examined and understood, both at the top and the bottom. On numerous important issues, I advocate that the warp and distortion get cleared out from both sides, and then for a properly functioning Congress to address and pass laws about the issues, under government that is "of, by and for the people." [I will elaborate this is a separate entry that I will compose in due course.].
My campaign strategy
The population of the 6th Congressional district is close to 700,000. In largely uncontested general elections over the past decade, the number voting in the general election in the 6th district has been 200,000 to 300,000. In the 2012 primary election, about 105,000 voted in the Republican primary, Spencer Bachus getting about 60,000 votes, Scott Beason about 30,000 votes, David Standridge 12,000 votes, and three others splitting the remainder. About 7500 voted in the Democratic primary. In the general election in November 2012, about 310,000 voted, with about 220,000 voting for Spencer Bachus and 88,000 for Penny Bailey, the Democratic candidate.
There are seven candidates in the 2014 Republican primary. I am an unknown.
The approval ratings of Congress are abysmally low (a 10% approval rating or less). It is fair to say that Americans are disgusted with their Congress, but they are resigned that they can't do anything about it.
A Congressional campaign based on the disgust of American people for their Congress lacks viability, because it will be seen as a losing cause, if not a joke. Those persons who have vested interests in who is elected, and who are a source of campaign funding (put these persons at about 1% of the electorate), will be assiduously working on identifying and supporting a candidate who they think has a decent chance and will best support their respective interests. The remaining 99% will largely vote according to their inertia, which will include voting their side of "us against them" purveyed by their political elite, and are a hard, hard case to budge out of their inertia.
Under the foregoing mentality, I have zero viability.
I have an advantage. I don't care about that. I believe I have a campaign statement that has a chance of catching on so that I do have a chance on June 3rd and I am extremely curious to find out what my Internet political campaign is able to produce.
To have I chance, I have to catch on.
First, I have to catch on in the 6th Congressional district before June 3rd.
If I can catch on in the Alabama 6th Congressional district before June 3rd, notice may be taken outside the Alabama 6th Congressional district about what is going on here. If that happens before June 3rd, there is no telling what will happen on June 3rd.
So, my paramount purpose is to "catch on" in the 6th district before June 3rd.
I am and will be pushing as hard as I can to catch on in the 6th district before June 3rd.
What you can do to help
If I have caught on with you, you can help me catch on with others. Just contact me at rdshattuck@gmail.com, and we can easily come up with a way for you to help.
If you don't want me to know you are helping, you can obviously proceed to email your friends and acquaintance about my candidacy.
If you are on LinkedIn, invite me to be a connection. My LinkedIn page is here.
I would say that, if the voters in the Alabama 6th Congressional district voted for the platform in the primary election on June 3rd, that would make for a significant message that would get publicized nationally and that could affect the general Congressional elections in November around the country. If I win on June 3rd, I would expend great effort urging Congressional candidate around the country s to espouse a similar platform as mine.
If I win on June 3rd, I would urge voters in the 6th Congressional district to pay attention to what is going on in the rest of the country leading up to the November election.
If I am elected to Congress in the November general election, I would be at the bottom of the Congressional totem pole in Washington and the effect of my platform on what happens is entirely dependent on how much support the platform has among voters around the country and how that is manifested in the general election in November.
There is a good chance my platform will have zero effect in Washington, and further I will be viewed with disfavor by those at the top of the Congressional totem pole (assuming they even know who I am).
Let's say my platform results in zero effect in Washington, and my job is to represent the interests of the voters in the Alabama 6th Congressional district as best I can. Currently, I know little about what voters in the 6th Congressional district consider important to them that I need to know about in doing my job in Washington. I would want voters in the 6th district to tell me what they consider important and that I should be paying attention to. I would hope retiring Representative Bachus would give me the benefit of the knowledge and experience he accumulated from his years in Congress.
Voters in the 6th Congressional district will, in some cases, have conflicting interests. I would want to do weigh and balance the conflicting interests. Banks and bank regulation is as an example, regarding which, in casting any legislative vote related to the same, I would try to weigh and balance.
I would should for as much transparency as possible regarding what I do in my job.
To help me with a sense of the job of a Congressman, I have read and am thinking about a letter that Congressman Mo Brooks has on the front page of his campaign website and that I have copied and pasted here.
