What is wrong with Congress?

[still being drafted]

I have decided to consolidate the discussion of  my two charges that there is NOT government "of, by and for" the people in Washington DC and that Congress is dysfunctional and not able to do its job properly for the American people.  I have been saying that the causes of one are also causes of the other.  I am going to lump the conditions into a discussion of "what is wrong with Congress."

What are the indicia and factors about something being badly wrong with Congress?

1. Evaluating Congressional performance during the past 20 years

I have focused on Congressional performance during the past 20 years and have given Congress a grade of F.  See Questions the panelist should ask and My answers to questions panelists should ask.  You need to reflect on the past 20 years yourself and decide whether you believe that there appears to be sufficiently poor performance that inquiry to try to find out why is called for.  I think inquiry is called for.

2. Congressional approval ratings

Here is a graph showing approval ratings of Congress (according to Gallup polling) going back forty years: Historical approval ratings.  I find it hard to say how much significance can be given to approval ratings in deciding whether something is wrong with Congress.

3. Risk of power and position being used for personal benefit

Has too much power and money been accumulated and concentrated in Washington, with an attendant risk that the political class in Washington may get itself in a position to obtain undue personal benefit at the expense of the American people?  This will be examined more below.

The political class in Washington is in the best position to evaluate and judge whether something is wrong with Congress (particularly the use of power and position for personal benefit), but those in the political class generally are not going to be forthcoming.  Lots of books have been  written by reporters, investigators and other authors who have endeavored to delve into the subject, and I think all the books paint a very damning picture that there is much wrong with Congress.  Organizations such as OpenSecrets.org attest to how difficult it is to get information on a political class that is pretty relentless in trying to avoid getting caught.

4. Balancing general interests improperly affected by one sided  special interest

Lawmakers are frequently confronted with a matter in which the people have general interests on opposite sides at the same time, and in which a very small group of persons have a special, one sided interest.  I have discussed this in several entries.  See, e.g., My American Lawmaker's Creed.

In my view, Congress should disregard the special, one-sided interest  and make its decision based on balancing the general societal interests.
I believe it is pervasively the case that this is not done.

Consider how much should health insurance companies, pharmaceutical companies, and medical equipment manufacturers have had in the provisions that were put in The Affordable Care Act?

Hundreds of thousands of people are employed by health insurance companies, pharmaceutical companies, and medical equipment manufacturers, and some consideration can be given by Congress about whether it is doing something that would shrink the size and profitability of those companies, and whether employment for those employees will or will not be adversely affected.

Also Congress could possibly give consideration  to stockholders of those companies, and whether the value of their companies will be increased or decreased by health care reform laws that are passed?

By and large, however, it would seem 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, pharmaceutical companies, and medical device manufacturers profitable is important for achieving cost and quality 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.

Further Congress can get information from those companies about how they will be affected and how cost and quality goals may be helped or not.

The point, however, is that the companies should not decide what the provisions are, but rather lawmakers should decide, and they should not be influenced by campaign contributions and the lobbying process.

I think it would be pretty easy to conclude that health insurance companies, pharmaceutical companies, and medical equipment manufacturers had too much say.

Part of the growing problem is that, more and more, everyone has a special, one sided interest in one thing or another, everyone has predominant or exclusive focus on their particular special, one sided interest, and, for reasons to be explained, the special, one sided interests get excessively served, that becomes a central contributing factor to Congress not doing its job properly for the American people.

Defining when there is "government of, by and for" the people

It is true that the people have the right to vote in elections, more than a hundred million of them do vote in elections, the voters have choices in their voting, how they vote determines who is elected as their President, Senators and Representatives, and the laws that are passed and other governmental actions that are taken are decided by those who have been elected by the people. From this, you would want to conclude that such arrangement fairly well constitutes government "of, by and for the people."

The mere right to vote, however, is not sufficient.  Two other things are required.

First, government "of, by and for" the people requires that the voters have knowledge and understanding about their lawmaker's votes, including what the lawmaker's votes are for and against and what the reasons for the lawmaker's votes are.  To the extent that is hidden from voters, there is not going to be government "of, by and for" the people because the voters are without needed information for expressing their individuals wills by means of their individual votes.

Government "of, by and for the people" also requires that the voters have meaningful participation in deciding who the candidates on the ballot are.  To the extent a very small group of voters (say 1%) decides who the candidates are, and the rest of the voters (say 99%) have essentially zero say in whose names will appear on the ballot, there is substantial risk there is not government "of, by and for" the people because of the limitations on their choices.

There is no black and white as to whether there is or is not government "of, by and for" the people, and it is a matter of degree.  The question for debate is how far away the country is from government "of, by and for" the people.   To get a sense of that entails inquiring into factual realities that cause or contribute to a departure from the ideal and how extreme those realities are.

What are the realities that undermine it?

The chief factual reality is how the amounts spent on election campaigns have escalated and how candidates and would be candidates are grossly dependent on a very small group of funders in order to be or become a viable candidate.

A couple of things should be mentioned.  While average voters may make campaign contributions that in the aggregate are a significant amount, this tends to happen late in the election cycle, whereas the critical time for establishing candidate viability is earlier in time, and that is when the small group of significant funders effectuates its determination of which candidates are viable on the ballot.

There are great power and riches to be had in Washington, and the human desire for those affects what goes on various ways that are adverse to having government "of, by and for" the people.  These include a willingness to do the bidding of funders and give them preferential access in order to get needed funding. Top down control by those above over those below is sought, developed, and practiced, in order to secure and augment the position, power and riches of those above.  This reduces attention being paid to the "people" one is elected to serve.

There is an enormous lack of transparency that keeps voters outrageously in the dark about what goes on in Washington, and this is exploited to preserve and augment personal riches and power of the elite in Washington.

You can find many books in your library which investigate the problem of the money monster in politics. problem.

I urge every voter to read Harvard Law Professor Lawrence Lessig's short book Lesterland: The Corruption of Congress And How To End It (copied and pasted in this blog at the foregoing link) and watch his 18 minute companion video that is here.

Among other things, Professor Lessig tries to go into detail about  Presidential campaigns requiring hundreds of millions of dollars to conduct, and campaigns for US Senate and House of Representatives seats running into the millions and tens of millions of dollars, the smallness of the donor class that funds them, fund raising is being a continuous activity that goes on for prior to the average voter making a decision among his voting choices, and how the donor class effectively decides which candidates are viable (have any chance of winning), and the average voter plays virtually no role in the deciding who will be the candidates that are viable (have any chance of winning)

A concrete example

Here is a concrete case in point to think about.   The biggest, most important legislation in 50 years was probably The Affordable Health Care Act.  To what extent does it pass the test of manifesting government "of, by, and for the people?"  

Let's focus on health insurance companies. How much should the profitability of health insurance companies have counted in the Congressional decision making process about health care reform? 

To be sure, tens of thousands of people are employed by health insurance companies, and some consideration can be given by Congress about whether it is doing something that would shrink the size and profitability of health insurance companies, and whether employment for those employees will or will not be adversely affected.

By the same token, how much consideration should have been 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?    Some consideration might be legitimately given by Congress to what would happen to the value of the stock of stockholders in health insurance companies.

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 quality 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.

Let's say hypothetically that a persuasive case was made to Congress that cost and quality goals would be best served if health insurance should be limited to "catastrophic" type coverage only, and routine health care should be handled outside of the health insurance model, with the result that health insurance companies would experience a substantial reduction in their business size.

In government "of, by and for" the people, every Congressman should be able to say openly and honestly to the health insurance companies and to all the lawmaker's constituents to the effect of, "yes, the health insurance companies employ tens of thousands of people, and those employees and the stockholders are very desirous that Congressional action on healthcare reform not reduce the size and profitability of health insurance companies; however, the paramount interests to be served are how the American people will be affected in the cost and quality of their healthcare. I have concluded that those objectives will be best served by health insurance being channeled into "catastrophic" type coverage only, and routine health care should be handled outside of the health insurance model.  This is going to have the result that health insurance companies will experience a substantial reduction in their business size and the number of employees will be reduced."

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

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

What do the experts say?

The real experts on this subject are the political class in Washington.  If I am wrong in what I describe above related to health insurance companies, let Senators Shelby and Sessions and Representative Bachus tell the voters I am wrong.

The political class in Washington deplores the harsh realities of campaigns costing so much money and of the associated fund raising from the donor class.  Are they only deploring that the fundraising takes too much time away from the Senators and Representatives in their doing their jobs for the American people in Congress, and, except for the loss of that time, Congress is functioning just fine in providing government "of, by and for" the people?  Or do they kniow that it is far more than that, and that the fundraising is one embodiment of the money monster in politics that has destroyed government "of, by and for" the people?   I have tried to ask Senators Shelby and Sessions and Representative Bachus those questions, but they are not anwering.


What do the other candidates think?

[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.

Senator Shelby's response to open letter

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

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

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

My campaign platform is that I think that, in Washington DC, there is NOT government of the people by the people, and for the people. I further think that the causes of that condition are also causes of Congress being dysfunctional and not being able to do its job properly for the American people.  I think this should have primacy and urgency for the American people, because, until these conditions are corrected, there will continue to be great failures to act by Congress and/or great errors in actions that are taken by Congress. A fuller statement of my platform can be found here.
I am doing my best to instigate debate about my platform among the 6th Congressional district candidates.
The alleged conditions that form the basis of my platform, if they exist, affect voters everywhere in the country, and not just in the 6th Congressional district. 
Also, as I discuss in the above linked statement of my platform, incumbent lawmakers who have Washington experience are the most knowledgeable about critical matters that are the basis of my platform.
I do not want to waste the time of the other 6th district candidates and of voters in the district if my platform does not have substantial validity in fact.
If the collective wisdom of the Alabama legislative delegation in Washington is that my platform does not have substantial validity in fact, and that voters in the 6th Congressional district need not have significant concern about what I am trying to put forth in my platform, being advised about that could be  helpful for the conduct of the election campaign in the 6th district by myself and the other candidates.
Accordingly, your views about my platform are respectfully solicited for consideration by the 6th district candidates (including myself) and voters.

The staff member from Senator Shelby's office said that Senator Shelby did not (or could not) endorse candidates, that Senator Shelby believed in following and upholding the Constitution, and that Senator Shelby always voted for what was best for Alabama. From the telephonic response I got, I could not discern whether Senator Shelby thought there was or was not substantial validity to foregoing contentions my platform makes or whether he thought the candidates and voters in the 6th Congressional district should or should not spend time debating my contentions.  In the conversation, I basically read the first four paragraphs quoted above, including incumbent lawmakers having superior knowledge about critical matters that are the basis of my platform.  The staff member did not refer to the matter of Senator Shelby having (or not having) superior knowledge.

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Thank you.

Sincerely,
Rob Shattuck

Governmental blocking of my political email

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

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

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

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

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

Vestavia Hills Board of Education 

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

Jefferson County Board of Education

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

I replied by email as follows:

Dear Ms. Littles,
Please advise Dr. Nowlin that I have received his letter, and I thank him very much for directing my attention to relevant legal authority.
As previously noted, Jefcoed has changed to not showing email addresses on the websites and instead has online contact forms. I have no idea whether employees continue to have Jefcoed email addresses, and, if so, what use is made by employees of those email addresses, such as for chatting with friends and taking care of personal matters, and/or what Jefcoed does to restrict any such use.
In short, I am not clear whether all is black and white here.
It is possible that I will, notwithstanding Dr. Nowlin's letter, use online contact forms to try to send messages to teachers.
In reaction to that, Jefcoed may block my computer IP address (or some such) to try to prevent me from communicating to teachers. That's all fine, and I will manage in my campaign.
Again, thanks to Dr. Nowlin for his letter to me.
Sincerely.

I sent a follow up email as follows:

Dear Ms. Littles,
I have some follow up regarding the email I sent to you yesterday in response to Dr. Nowlin's letter.
In my campaign efforts to communicate to teachers in schools throughout the 6th Congressional district, it is hard to keep immediately in mind everything I have done. My email yesterday referred to the Jefcoed websites not showing email addresses and having only contact forms. As our email correspondence reflected, I sent emails to Gardendale High School using email addresses, which I managed to do because I knew the form of Jefcoed email addresses and was able to create email addresses for the Gardendale teachers using their names. I did the same thing with Shades Valley High last Friday.
Thus, I do know that teachers have Jefcoed email addresses to which emails can be sent. I remain ignorant of how much non-school use is made of such email addresses and to what extent Jefcoed monitors and enforces restrictions on non-school use.
I think it is worth pointing out that the U.S. Supreme Court case Perry Education Association v. Perry Local Educators Association, 460 U.S. 37 (1983), which Dr. Nowlin's letter cites, is from 1983. In 1983, the Internet was in its infancy, and I doubt the technology involved in the case was connected with the outside world through the Internet.
It sounds from Dr. Nowlin's letter that no legal opinion has been obtained currently and that language in the 1983 case is being loosely relied on by the Board of Education.
I have been communicating with other Boards of Education and will inform them about Dr. Nowlin's letter. I will also renew my effort to get the views of one or more constitutional law professors in Alabama about this matter.
Communicating to teachers and other employees at schools throughout the 6th Congressional district is an important part of my election campaign. I need to continue such communicating. If Boards of Education act to block my email address, so be it.
I favor strenuous efforts to battle against cyber criminals, hackers, scammers, and abusive spammers. I do not consider myself being abusive. The Board of Education should reflect on whether it wants to allow the bad actors to justify the Board in blocking my non-abusive use.
Sincerely,

Updates
Other Boards of Education, etc.

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

Contact with University of Alabama constitutional law professor

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

Blount County Board of Education

The Blount County Board of Education has written me and said

our Board policy states "The Board's and/or school's mail system may not be used to distribute political material. (Section 17-1-17 of the Alabama Code, Attorney General's opinion 94-00255). " Our Board does not provide a list of employee names or e-mail addresses to any candidate and we do not give candidates permission to use our e-mail system.

The current Code of Alabama provision is Section 17-17-5(a), which provides

 No person in the employment of the State of Alabama, a county, a city, a local school board, or any other governmental agency, whether classified or unclassified, shall use any state, county, city, local school board, or other governmental agency funds, property, or time, for any political activities.

Alabama Attorney General opinion 94-00255 can be found here.   The opinion, in three separate parts, concludes that a school board may prohibit school employees from (i) wearing partisan political buttons while on school property, (ii) distributing partisan political material through the inter-office and inter-facility mail service, and (iii) displaying partisan political material on school bulletin boards or walls.   The opinion suggests that a school board may even limit the discussion of political candidates by employees during working hours.

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

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

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

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

Letter from Homewood Board of Education counsel

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

Dear Mr. Wilson,

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

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

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

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

Yours truly,

Donald Sweeney

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

Email to University of Alabama constitutional law professors

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

Dear Professors,

Following up on the email that I sent yesterday, please be advised that counsel to the Homewood Board of Education has written a letter to the Board, which says, in part, as follows:

As attorney for the Homewood Board of Education, I believe you have every right to determine who has access to your email system.
Accordingly, I recommend as board attorney that you block all emails from Mr. Shattuck. If he has case law that clearly and convincingly demonstrates that he has a Constitution[al] right to access the Board’s email system for purposes unrelated to the educational program of the school system I would be glad to review what he submits.
In the meantime I would suggest you block all of his emails and put an end to this time consuming distraction.
. . .
P.S. Please forward this opinion to all people listed on Mr. Shttuck’s email to you. Several of the parties listed are clients of mine.

The full text of said counsel's letter is set forth in my blog entry Governmental blocking of my political email.

Cumberland constitutional law professors

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

Dear Professors,

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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


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

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

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

Message to 6th district voters

Message to voters in the 6th Congressional district

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Go to Getting other candidates to respond.
Thank you.

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

An Internet political campaign

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Shelby County Police Chiefs meeting

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

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

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

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

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

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

Open letter to Alabama delegation in Washington

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

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

SUBJ: 6th Congressional district election debate

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Thank you.

Sincerely,
Rob Shattuck

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

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

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

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

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