Mad about the bankruptcy vote? Do something constructive.

by: AdamGreen

Mon May 04, 2009 at 17:00


Over at Huffington Post, Professor Lawrence Lessig (whom I work with in advancing public funding of congressional elections) gives people something constuctive to do with the anger over last week's bankruptcy vote:

If you think special-interest influence in Congress perverts our public policy, last week saw an outrage that vindicates that belief entirely.

Sen. Dick Durbin offered a bill that would allow families at risk of losing their homes -- but with an ability to pay their mortgage if their monthly rates were lower and extended over more years -- to legally get that option.

The very banks that taxpayers kept alive with billions in bailouts had the audacity to spend millions lobbying Congress to oppose this bill. They also showered politicians with campaign contributions.

The bill was defeated. Senator Durbin declared that banks "frankly own the place." Will you continue to support politicians who support this corrupt system? Or will you demand that any politician you donate to support reform?

Please join Change Congress's political "donor strike" today.

Thousands of people are telling members of Congress they won't get a dime from us unless they co-sponsor Senator Durbin's Fair Elections Now Act to overhaul congressional campaign financing. It would replace our broken system with citizen-funded elections, a hybrid of public funding and small-dollar donations.

Already, our strike has withheld over $1.25 million from politicians (based on contributions last cycle). It's also been featured by ABC, NBC, the Associated Press, Politico, Huffington Post, and others.

Now is the time to send politicians a message that we absolutely demand they change the system.

Can you help take back Congress by joining the "donor strike" today?

I sense that a lot of people are sick of just venting. And are sick of the current system. Wanted to make sure you saw there is a campaign you can tap into to fix it.

AdamGreen :: Mad about the bankruptcy vote? Do something constructive.

Tags: , , , , , , (All Tags)
Print Friendly View Send As Email
Sure, that's smart... (0.00 / 0)
Let Republicans get unlimited campaign contributions...

That will make things better... that will show 'em!  (rolls eyes)

I understand not wanting to fund bad democrats, so move funding to good dems, instead... or some other progressive cause...

A "donor strike" isn't going to change the financing laws... it will make democrats seek even more funding from corporate sources....  This kind of activity sounds more like suicide to me...


REID: Voting against us was never part of our arrangement!
SPECTER: I am altering the deal! Pray I don't alter it any further!
REID: This deal keeps getting worse all the time!


The more I think about, the more self-defeating this idea is! (0.00 / 0)
The way to knock out the influence of bank campaign contributions is to let the dems know that we can match their influence either through more money or more exposure... Pre-preemptively capitulating only makes it easier for them to ignore us in the future and subsequently seek more funding from unacceptable sources...

This donor strike idea is a one way path to progressive irrelevance... I don't think we should be funding bad politicians, but there are more practical, effective ways to withhold funding to get a political process moving...

REID: Voting against us was never part of our arrangement!
SPECTER: I am altering the deal! Pray I don't alter it any further!
REID: This deal keeps getting worse all the time!


[ Parent ]
nah, you're wrong (0.00 / 0)
Basically, Dems will support this...if it ever gets on their radar.

Problem is getting them to focus on big-picture things in the midst of short-term issues (which there will always be).

This gets them to pay attention. They, all they have to do is add their name on a bill they are inclined to support anyway, and the strike for them is over.

Bob Bauer, Barack Obama's lawyer (writing in his personal capacity), calls it borderline ingenious.

Thank you, Bob.


[ Parent ]
Considering how much money you need to run a Senate campaign.. (0.00 / 0)
.. can you really afford, in the near future, to alienate your corporate donors, by taking the pledge? Please see my comment, below. I think there's a real risk of backfiring for Senate elections. Best strategy, IMO, is to target the House with an enhanced donor strike, first.

The Senate is better to target first for ostracism, which Lessig called "very cool".

435 Dem Primaries 2012
Coffee Party Usa
TheRealNews.Com


[ Parent ]
nah, you're wrong (0.00 / 0)
Basically, Dems will support this...if it ever gets on their radar.

Problem is getting them to focus on big-picture things in the midst of short-term issues (which there will always be).

This gets them to pay attention. They, all they have to do is add their name on a bill they are inclined to support anyway, and the strike for them is over.

Bob Bauer, Barack Obama's lawyer (writing in his personal capacity), calls it borderline ingenious.

Thank you, Bob.


[ Parent ]
I think you guys both missed the point. (4.00 / 1)
From the campaign website:

"I'm pledging not to donate to any federal candidate unless they support legislation making congressional elections citizen-funded, not special-interest funded." (Read more.)

The point is to put a jar full of money in the middle of the table and make the candidates recognize that the cost of getting the jar is supporting public financing of elections.  Incentive is a powerful motivator, politicians understand cash values without the need for analysts or advisers.

We (the donors) are saying, this is how much I'm planning to give in the 2010 cycle, but none of it will go to you if you don't support this cause.

It should also be noted that Change Congress is a non-partisan org, some Republican candidates have taken their pledges, as well as 3rd party candidates.

Foolish is continuing to finance candidates overcoming the corrupt system, who will get in to office and work to maintain the corrupt system.



[ Parent ]
The Goal Is (0.00 / 0)
to create legislation that both parties are bound by, regards to campaign finance reform.

[ Parent ]
Good, but not good enough (4.00 / 1)
I'm a big supporter of Change-Congress (look at my sig). However, rather than merely pledging not to support Congressman X with our dollars, why not dedicate those dollars to a subset of the opponents of this Congressman who will not take the pledge? If you are a partisan donor, you can release funding to a primary challenger when the incumbent is from your party, and just abstain from donating for the general election. (Also, if the incumbent is not of your party, you can release funds during the primary and/or general).

The way this should work is that funds will be held in escrow, and released at the prerogative of the donor, but cannot be returned to the donor. If the donor decides that they don't want to contribute to "anybody but Congressman X" in a particular election, fine. They can use the money in a future election. To make the threat credible, though, you shouldn't allow money to be used for any election that can't potentially affect the recalcitrant incumbent. Rather, it has to be used for an election in the same district (if Congressman X is a Representative) or in a the same state (if Congressman X is a Senator). Only if a Congressman is no longer in office or running for re-election can unspent funds be applied to another election.

There's another mode in which funds could be dedicated and dispersed to opponents of incumbents who do not take the pledge. If the donor wants to make a financial statement to incumbents, and has, say, $1,000 that they want to apply to that end, they should have the option of having the money go into a general fund, to be applied to 'any' candidate who challenges an incumbent who does not take the plunge.

Of course, I expect that most donors will not really want to support any candidate who will not take the pledge. Even though Change-Congress is non-partisan, partisan donors should be able to support only challengers who are members of their own party, who have taken the pledge. So, even in this second, dispersed mode of donating, you have to give people the ability to restrict which candidates can get a piece of the action. (Eventually, a real democracy-friendly funding portal will accommodate lots of in-between scenarios.)

There's also a greater concern about the donor pledge program backfiring, in the case of the Senate. Can you really run for Senator and expect to win, without lots of corporate dollars? Someday, yes, but in the near future? I think some thought should go into doing this strategically, viz., apply to the House first, and don't go after the Senate until you have 50-75% of the House consisting of pledge-takers.

IMO, getting rid of corrupt Senators, first, is the proper strategic emphasis you want in a rollout of an ostracism program. (I ran my ostracism idea by Lessig, btw. He said it was "very cool".) So, initial rollouts of the enhanced donor strike I've outlined above for the House, with an ostracism program for the Senate, seems like the smartest way to approach things.


435 Dem Primaries 2012
Coffee Party Usa
TheRealNews.Com


This Seems Like An Important Tactic (0.00 / 0)
I hope Mr. Lessig promotes this idea.  

[ Parent ]
Agreed...but... (0.00 / 0)
I think you make a great point.

2 points.

1) We need to be careful to avoid outright bribery. We checked this out extensively with the lawyers. "If you sponsor X, I'll give you Y money" is a dicey proposition. But, as Bob Bauer pointed out, the way it's structured now is all legal.

2) It would take a PAC to do that. We're operating more as a legislative vehicle.

But your instincts aren't wrong. And if someone wanted to come up with ways of politically rewarding people even more who were bold on this issue, that would be smart.

Adam


[ Parent ]
Interesting (0.00 / 0)
But I don't think my ideas cross any line. Donors are not overtly asking for any commitment from any candidate in return for their cash, they're just saying that "we are going to fund Congressman X's opposition, because we don't like his attitude towards funding". I guess the interesting legal (and logical) question is, "to whom or what does one have a contract with, such that this person or entity will not allow me to use my escrowed money to fund somebody who has not taken the pledge, but will allow me to fund a candidate who has taken the pledge, and with respect to whom  I will not allow them to do anything with my money but safeguard it, and make sure it collects a reasonable rate of interest, and does not deduct more than .1% for management fees?"

I've described essential points of a contract, but no, I don't know who this contract would be with. I'm no lawyer, consequently I'm all ears if somebody qualified has a legal opinion.


435 Dem Primaries 2012
Coffee Party Usa
TheRealNews.Com


[ Parent ]
Yipes! Change-Congress used to be in my sig (0.00 / 0)
I took it out because I only had 3 slots to work with.

435 Dem Primaries 2012
Coffee Party Usa
TheRealNews.Com


[ Parent ]
BTW, I LOVE the title of this diary post (4.00 / 1)
Doing something constructive, while not allowing oneself the luxury of being satisfied by doing something that merely feels good, but doesn't really change things on a long term basis, is the way to go.

Of course, figuring out what really works and what doesn't can take quite a while. :-)

435 Dem Primaries 2012
Coffee Party Usa
TheRealNews.Com


Yes, yes, yes (0.00 / 0)
The title nails it.  In fact, I could use an entire month of postings on this topic and nothing else.  

Or course, not every idea for action will be a good idea, but the first step is to get lots of ideas out there and then have the wisdom of the masses determine which is the right path to follow.

More like this-if not exactly like this-please.



[ Parent ]
Close Your Bank Accounts (4.00 / 1)
The simplest way to slay this dragon is to stop feeding it. Can we come up with some standard by which to boycott the biggest, most evil banks? A small regional bank or a credit union should work fine if one really feels the need to participate in the banking system (many of us no longer do).

Some might find disengagement or semi-disengagement to be difficult steps, but it's really surprisingly easy to pull an Obi-Wan Kenobi and remove yourself from the bank slavery game that we are told we must play. I can't possibly express the joy in not having paid a single usurous bank fee since I closed my accounts in the last year.

Ecrasons l'infame!

http://www.funnyordie.com/jame...


My father just pulled his accounts with Wells Fargo (0.00 / 0)
and put them in the local credit union.

My blog  

[ Parent ]
Yep (4.00 / 1)
Wells Fargo was one of the banks I walked away from. Good for your father!

http://www.funnyordie.com/jame...

[ Parent ]
The donor strike is a bad idea (0.00 / 0)
We need to donate to progressive candidates who support publicly financed campaigns. Furthermore, Durbin's bill, although a step in the right direction, doesn't go far enough. What should happen is we get rid of political ads for candidates, and make the campaign a number of town hall meetings, rallies, and  televised debates which are given free TV time on broadcast and local tv stations. This way people actually have to hear both sides instead of false attack ads about non issues. It would really improve our politics and it would get big money out of the campaigns entirely.

I agree (0.00 / 0)
If you can open your system to alternative party candidates, that is. If only Repuds and Dems get the free (well, publically funded) TV and radio time, count me out.


"It sounds wrong...
     ...but its right."


[ Parent ]
Re-read the pledge/campaign site (0.00 / 0)
We need to donate to progressive candidates who support publicly financed campaigns.

That is exactly what this action calls for.  Well, the action is non-partisan, so it doesn't specify progressive, just that you will only contribute to candidates who support publicly financed campaigns.

We channeled a great deal of money in to Democratic challengers in the last 3 cycles that do not support some of the most important issues to us.  Many progressives held their nose and handed over their cash - and now those elected officials that won, are voting against us, speaking out against our issues and manipulating legislation in the back rooms to squeeze all the progressive goodness out of it.

This pledge is about ending that.  Stop electing people just because they are a smidgen better than the guy they replaced from the other side, once you put them there, you will have no control over them and they will do more to hurt our agenda than the guy from the other team ever could dream of doing.  Focus your efforts and dollars on candidates that are absolutely in the right position on this issue, the issue that is behind most of the corruption and deceit in DC.


[ Parent ]
USER MENU

Open Left Campaigns

SEARCH

   

Advanced Search

QUICK HITS
STATE BLOGS
Powered by: SoapBlox