| This
page outlines action suggestions for local Tea Party enthusiasts to set
up their own "Donors Forum" or "Investment Club" to
coordinate and surge for strategic impact (but not
control) the independent political donation choices
by local individuals who have chosen to work together to seek
greater accountability by politicians for basic shared interests
such as limited government. The
concept is explained further on the Tea Party
Accountability page. The suggestions below elaborate on
the local process to create and grow such groups, and then network them
for even greater impact. If you like this idea,
join Tea Money
and set up your own local social networking group of principled
independent political donors in your community.
What are you prepared to do? |
|
Action plan outline: the links are to details below
Timeline:
 | First six steps above - can be done within weeks by
a few motivated local leaders |
| Use legislative controversies this fall and in
early 2010 as growth opportunities |
| Be well organized before CPAC (Feb 2010) and
support Tax Day Tea Parties in April 2010 |
| Test the collaboration process in selected 2010
primary races to show the potential impact |
| Grow throughout the 2010 election cycle - focus on
key races and accountability to voters |
| Keep growing after the 2010 election to improve and
start preparing for 2012 |
|
|
Before setting up
a Tea Party Donors Forum or Investment Club - "our sacred honor" |
|
Before setting up such a group locally, consider how the local decisions
can be efficiently coordinated with similar groups across the state and
country for greater impact. We must be in this fight to win - like
the old line that now we must hang together, or else we will surely hang
separately. There needs to be consistent
commitment across the country to restore the basic Constitutional ideals
of public service which respect "we the people" rather than wealth, and
limited government rather than statist
power ambitions.
The members don't need to pass some sort of
ideological litmus test, such as to prove that they are all
Reagan conservatives , but if they don't
even respect Reagan's legacy of achievements, regardless of whether or
not they like other Republicans now, then this group probably isn't
their cup of tea. Those who still believe that more government is
the solution, rather than the problem, should look elsewhere. |
| Go
back and read the Declaration of Independence carefully again - and
especially the closing line.
Are you in this to restore political accountability to
"we the people of the United States", or to impose your own ideas on
others or to profit personally by influencing group actions or our
government to your own advantage? Is your "sacred honor" on the
line to do what you believe is right to
save the country, rather than to advance your own interests?
Would veterans be proud of how you
are acting to help defend our exceptional country? Would the
"Founding Fathers" respect what you are doing? |
| As
such groups are set up locally, be prepared to share ideas with similar
groups elsewhere. Become part of a nationwide "learning
organization" of patriots who share core values. Quickly spread
and improve on "best practice" ideas that have demonstrably worked well
elsewhere. Innovate. Lead. The local
leaders should be prepared to invest considerable time and effort
(rather than just money) to support such coordination as a national
network of groups which are committed to winning this fight. |
|
Instead of a bureaucratic party hierarchy, this lean organization of
action-oriented local leaders must be committed to
working together to promote accountability to voters as a
public service. The individual local donors retain full
control of their donation decisions, while the coordinators help them to
target those individual actions more
effectively for greater local, state, and national political
impact. Democratic Senators have
threatened to use their "nuclear option" to ram
controversial legislation through as partisan battles. Think of
the donor forums as our nuclear deterrence strategy.
Build up the cash stockpile, but don't rush to use it. Instead,
grow it patiently as available leverage to call the bluff of their
illusory "power" and the phony brinksmanship of contrived provocations.
Demonstrate our strategic and tactical capability to surge money into
the campaigns of more principled candidates on short notice. Keep
growing that stockpile into a formidable deterrent to arrogant, specious
politicians. |
|
Start quickly with
just a few motivated donors and initial commitments |
|
Just do it, as they say. Get a few motivated people together,
and start working on it step by step. For
example, try to identify 10 friends who can afford to set aside at least
$500 each for political donations in 2010. That's just $10 per
week, but already adds up to $5000. Get together at your house or
a local coffee shop, library, or someplace and figure out what you can
do together. |
|
Remember, this doesn't mean that you will all fork over $500 on the
spot. The first step is to commit that you are willing to invest
at least that much as a starting point to try to have an impact in 2010.
Before you start asking anyone else to make commitments
of money or time and effort, it also shows that those involved are
already committed. The larger the initial group of leaders, and
the larger their initial commitment, then the more persuasive it will be
when approaching other potential donors. |
| This
can be done in any community, regardless of size. You are still
free to assemble and speak to each other about your political concerns,
and what you intend to do about them. There is no need to wait for
the political parties or candidates to do something, such as a town hall
event or speech. Talk to your friends and start organizing and
setting aside the savings to invest in political accountability. |
| This
doesn't require anything complicated like protest permits, websites,
legal or tax issues, or anything else. Getting started just
requires personal commitment to get a few motivated people together and
figure out how to develop an effective local group as quickly as
possible, and how to achieve the desired impact together. Put
together an action-oriented team with a variety of capabilities to
contribute to the effort, and then grow and focus that team past the
initial chaos phase of many competing ideas. There needs to be a
clear vision which unites them despite any such differences.. |
|
Define the basic
mission and broad objectives of the group |
| The
local groups don't have to be the same. They aren't working for a
state or national organization. The members are the leaders.
They define their own mission, objectives, plans and goals. They
make their own donation decisions as individuals. They work
together and take responsibility for success. They learn from
failures or mistakes, and work hard to overcome and avoid rather than
repeat them. In that context, however, a good
suggestion is to keep the mission statement simple and inclusive, rather
than complex and divisive or exclusive. It should be something
which many local donors can enthusiastically support, and the objectives
should also be very relevant to basic local voter concerns. |
|
Illustrative Example: Mission: The
_______ Donors Forum will coordinate, but not control, individual
political donation decisions and support local activities which
encourage more limited rather than more government.
Objectives:
| Network many independent local political donors who
support the mission. |
| Coordinate their personal donation decisions to
achieve a greater impact |
| Leverage such local donor commitments by working
together to attract others |
| Coordinate local actions with similar groups
elsewhere for even greater impact |
|
| Note
that this does not focus on specific policy issues, candidates, or party
platforms or special interest group agendas. The idea is to bring
the donors together, and then trust them to choose wisely in
consultation with each other about how to have the desired impact on the
issues which motivate them as individuals or as a group.
The commitment is like that mutual pledge of the founders
in the Declaration of Independence to each other - to work together for
a greater common cause despite their many personal differences. |
|
Reach out to major
known or identifiable donors and listen to their input |
| There
are various sources of information about past campaign donors in any
community. In the case of federal elections, the reports are
limited to large donors, and many of these will already be faithful
political party supporters rather than independent voters. In any
case, such donor lists can be a useful starting point for research to
identify potential members and size up local political party
fundraising. Of course, a lot of traditional political fundraising
is done through events and interest groups (PACs, etc.) rather than
individual donors, but the available information is worth review. |
| If
one starts with the premise that many independent voters are not very
satisfied with either party or their past candidates, however, the point
to remember is that there may be many other potential donors who
routinely reject solicitations from the political parties or their
candidates. The prior donor lists are therefore useful for
reference as one way to estimate the potential "market" of donors, but
there may actually be more potential than either party has reportedly
attracted. There are also many small personal donations which add
up, especially in local races, but don't go into such reports. |
Here
are a few examples of useful sources of information, just to illustrate
what is readily available.
| Follow the Money
www.followthemoney.org
- National Institute on Money in State Politics - useful when setting
goals to see how much money was raised in total by past campaigns
within a state or local area, and from what sources |
| Federal Election Commission
www.fec.gov - For example,
nearly $1 billion was reported for 2008 House campaigns, and over $400
million for 2008 Senate campaigns. You can look up the reported
donations by individual election race to see what the candidates
raised, and can then drill down to individual donor records (for
amounts over $200). |
| Center for Responsive Politics
www.opensecrets.org top
contributors - but note that the top corporate donors may be
compilations of individual donors by their reported employer data
rather than records of corporate donations to PACs or other groups.
The data provides an overview of money raised by PACs, 527s, and
campaigns, which is useful for perspective. |
| Project Vote Smart
www.votesmart.org
information about voting records of incumbents |
| State election websites or county clerks may also
publish useful applications with records of donors within their
jurisdiction. |
Fundraising by candidates may sometimes be pretty
similar, and money alone may not swing the results, but it helps -
especially if the money is on hand at the right time in the campaign.
It is obviously not necessary to raise as much money as either campaign
to have an impact. Instead, it is important to have enough
donor money readily available at the right time to make a difference. |
| For
simplicity, suppose that available records for a community show that
donations have been pretty evenly split between the two parties, and add
up to around $50,000 for each party, in a place where voters seem to be
split 40 - 40 - 20 between Republicans, Democrats and independents.
The local donor split might therefore be roughly $40,000 - $40,000 -
$20,000, with the independent money getting divided pretty evenly between the two parties.
It is also possible that there is far more potential
among frustrated independent donors who neither party have been
attracting.
The potential independent donations in this example
might be much more than $20,000 - and perhaps even more than either
party is raising if they are very motivated. That can have a
greater impact if the donors coordinate their efforts and timing of
their actions instead of splitting their money pretty evenly.
The point is that they need not be drawing money
"away" from traditional party fundraising. This need not be a
threat to a party's or candidate's own fundraising efforts - unless
their usual donors are also frustrated and choose to back the push for
greater accountability to voters by keeping their donation actions
independent, even if they may still vote and donate primarily for the
usual party of their choice. |
| In a
small community rather than a large city, the known donor list may be
relatively short. The local Tea Party protest leaders may already
know many of them personally - but perhaps didn't realize that they had
been contributing to such political campaigns in the past. A very
quick informal survey of the local Tea Party participants and some
brainstorming among them might already identify a pretty substantial
list of potential donors who are motivated to promote greater political
accountability. |
|
Similarly, those who are active in their local communities may already
know many people who are also active in leading charitable or business
organizations rather than political campaigns. They may not have
traditionally given much money to political parties or candidates, but
they might be motivated to participate in an independent Tea Party
initiative to promote greater political accountability to voters. |
|
The initial team of 10 or more leaders in the donor group should
be able to quickly their heads together,
do a little basic homework, compare notes, and come up with an initial list of
perhaps 20 or more major donors in the community. They can then
quickly approach these
personally to listen to their political concerns and perhaps discuss the
initial
plans of the group as appropriate. Think of this as gathering
market information and test-marketing the concept with a target audience
before launching it. |
| The
key is to listen to these potential major donors.
They aren't being asked for any money. They are just being
thanked for their past support in the community, and asked
whether they may have any interest in joining the donor forum or
club to further discuss shared political concerns, such as
greater accountability to voters. The offer is to
collaborate on future donation decisions for more impact
by joining the group without any donor giving up control
over their own donation choices. If they are
interested, the "ask" would just be to estimate how much they might
choose to donate over the next year to the candidates or political
activities of their choice. That isn't a commitment to make
specific donations - it's more like a survey to test how motivated they
are to make such investments. Is this a motivated donor who may be
able to move fast when there is an important initiative to support? |
|
Establish
realistic goals and individual responsibility for the tasks to achieve
them |
| The
consultations among the initial donors, and with those who they identify
and approach as above to listen and learn about their experience and
expectations, set the stage for the first estimate of the potential
scale of available resources and impact of the group. This
evaluation can be used to set realistic goals, critical tasks, action
priorities, and individual responsibilities for the tasks involved. |
| For
example, the initial group may discover that significantly fewer donors
are interested in joining than they anticipated, or perhaps interest is
much greater than they imagined. They may discover that the
potential donors are prepared to make larger or smaller commitments than
they had anticipated. They may learn that many donors share
concerns which the initial group had not yet foreseen.
They may also discover that some donors can leverage
their own commitments through their own networks of business colleagues
or friends who they already know to share similar concerns.
Instead of trying to "beat the bushes" to find motivated members, some
of these contacts may be able to quickly and easily draw others into the
group. |
| This
wraps up the "pre-launch" stage. The initial leaders need to
decide whether their group is a "go" or "no go", or whether their
initial ideas need to change to reflect what they have learned through
their initial interaction with significant potential donors (whether
they chose to join up or not). At this point,
the leaders should have a pretty clear set of viable goals and action
steps.
| How many members do they think they can attract in
the next six months? |
| If they succeed, what resources is the group likely
to have available? |
| What impact do they think will be possible with
those group resources? |
| What do they need to do to attract such members? |
| Who will take responsibility for these tasks to
make it happen? |
For example as this is written at the end of October
2009, a new group might set some initial goals for the remainder of 2009
and early 2010 primaries, but use April 15 "Tax Day Tea Party" plans as
a target deadline for growing the group to full scale for the
desired impact on the 2010 general election. The group could
obviously keep growing after that, particularly to prepare for 2012, but
this would mean that the group is already fully prepared for action at
least 6 months prior to the 2010 general election. |
|
Unlike fundraising drives which may focus on the largest donors first
and then work down to the smaller ones, this process may be more
comparable to the dynamic of a local charity auction. The key is
to get the right people together in the room who already decided that they
want to support this cause, or else they wouldn't even be there.
Help them to discover how much they can do together by setting ambitious
but realistic goals which they can see will have an important impact.
Make it easy for them to provide as much support as they want, but
respect the small donors too because they all add up. |
| Small
steps can also be significant. For example, organize an open event
at a local venue and invite relevant politicians or candidates to speak
to both the member donors and other voters who choose to attend.
This need not be a debate or town hall, and it may be a good idea to
partner with other local organizations (chambers, etc.) which can help
with the details and promotion of it to their members or the general
public. That may not cost the members very much, but it can
already raise the visibility of the new group locally and thereby help
to attract new members as well as the attention of politicians.
Instead of protesting against those politicians who won't
listen, which can be like beating a dead horse, this can be a simple way
to reach out to those who may be more worthy of support. That can
be more effective than the members paying a premium to listen to those
same politicians at a fundraising event by their campaign, local party
organization, or special interest group. The sooner that this
happens in the 2010 election cycle, then the more that politicians will
be aware of such groups as a new factor. |
|
Refine the
message of the group and ask for additional commitments of support |
| The
initial donor group, and the feedback from the initial outreach effort
among other local donors, sets the stage for a larger and more
systematic effort to grow the membership and available resources.
The initial donor contacts and focus on listening to the concerns of
independent donors should quickly identify the common themes which will
motivate potential members to join up. |
| The
next step is to use that tested knowledge of the current "market" among
independent local donors to persuade many relevant prospects to join the
group, and to encourage their friends to do so as well.
The members just need to be careful to develop a simple
and clear, consistent, motivating message for potential members.
If the message seems too fuzzy or inconsistent, and the potential impact
too uncertain, then busy donors will be reluctant to invest their time
and effort at first. Frustrated voters are likely to be skeptical
at first. The message needs to clearly differentiate this
initiative for such voters.
The group may need to spark interest by doing
some tangible things quickly which differentiate it as results-oriented
and effective. For example, there were many skeptics about the
initial Tea Parties, but their bold actions soon attracted supporters.
The goal of these groups isn't to assemble a crowd to complain loudly.
It is to assemble action-oriented donors who want to have an
impact on the next election, and on how candidates are
held accountable by voters as public servants
after elections. |
| Some
thought also needs to be given to common donor objections.
Do they feel that this group is undermining the party which they have
favored in the past? Are they worried about visible association
with such an independent group because of friendships with party
officials or politicians? Do they worry about whether their
membership will be used to imply endorsement of candidates or policies
which they personally dislike? Do they think that the initiative
won't work as intended? Are they worried about
unintended consequences, such as independent candidates becoming
spoilers who swing election results to a worse candidate? This
isn't about creating a third party, but that may be a common
misperception.
In any case, before members try to actively recruit
additional members, they need to refine their pitch, and then keep
testing and refining it according to what they learn as membership
grows. |
|
Test-market the
potential local donor interest level through more public outreach |
| This
is the growth phase of the launch process. Depending upon the size
of the community involved, and how well the initial group members are
already connected to others in that community, the prior steps may all
be completed in a matter of just a few weeks. In
other words, it shouldn't take very long to
| assemble the initial team and agree on the initial
plan of action |
| reach out and listen to a limited number of
significant potential donors |
| figure out what has been learned through that
outreach |
| refine the initial action plans for the group - who
will do what, when, and how |
| get ready to reach out to more potential members |
That is analogous to the first Tea Party events, which
were organized in just a few weeks by a handful of very action-oriented
people. The political parties have become large, plodding
bureaucracies. The Tea Party groups were quickly differentiated as
groups of very motivated and capable volunteers. The donor forums
basically need to do the same - among potential local donors rather than
protesters. Speed is important during the start-up phase for these
groups to ramp up to scale as a credible force. |
| Every
community is unique in terms of how to bring potential donors together
quickly. This will require creativity and hard work at first on
the part of the initial leadership group. In the case of the Tea
Party movement, the initial events in February were soon followed by far
more and much larger events in mid April. By August the local town
halls were swamped, and the 9/12 march on Washington DC was huge.
There needs to be a similar progression in 2010 - starting with the
organizational work to network many of the local donors in many
communities before the end of 2009. |
| One
date to keep in mind is that CPAC is February 18-20, 2010 in
Washington DC. In that context, it might be very helpful for
donor forums to already be fairly well organized and take some visible
actions together before that time as a "shot across the bow" for the
2010 election cycle. Some of the Tea Party groups and individual
conservatives such as Sarah Palin have already started to do some things
such as to encourage support of Doug Hoffman in the NY 23rd race this
November. The point is to get out there and network the local
donors quickly, and then document the resources, as below.
Since money talks, show them the money as a
surprise before CPAC - but don't spread it around yet.
Keep your powder dry as you get organized and build up a very
action-oriented network of donors. Develop local events such as
the 2010 Tax Day Tea Party to expand that donor network.
Of course, there are important political developments
this fall (health care, cap and trade, etc.) which already need to be
fought, so ideally some significant donor groups can already get
organized before the members of Congress inflict such legislation on us.
As with the original Tea Party efforts, even 20 - 40 small groups can
quickly inspire the organization and growth of hundreds of others.
It may just be a lot harder to network independent political donors than
to find voters who want to vent their anger. |
|
Focus on basic
issues, not divisive details, and keep the group action-oriented |
| The
minute you get 10 - 20 or more people together to discuss politics,
there are likely to be some common concerns but also significant
differences of opinion about what to do. If a group grows to 100
or more people, the debate can become pretty intense and divisive.
That's OK. It should lead to very spirited and
interesting rather than boring meetings, as well as better decisions, if
the leaders can bring focus to their discussions and find the common
ground on which they can generally agree. That isn't a search for
the least controversial course of action, but rather the action plan
which will have a real impact on their most important concerns. |
| There
needs to be a relentless focus on the objectives and goals of the group
each month, and the progress which is being made to achieve them.
The meetings (regardless of how often they happen, whether in person or
online or by scheduled teleconferences) may serve an informational role
to help keep all members aware of important developments, but they
should be action-oriented. There should be specific follow-up
tasks and clear agreement on who will be doing what to achieve progress
before the next meeting takes place. |
| The
action focus remains on the individual donors, and their decision
process and priorities. What do they need to know to decide
whether or not to follow an action proposal, and to satisfy themselves
that such action will have the desired impact? Rather than argue
over abstract policy issues or personal opinions of individual
politicians, there needs to be a very basic focus on the donation
decision. Is this worth supporting or not? If so, what is
the best way to do it, and when? What resources are needed to
achieve the objectives? What can we do together to deliver that
desired impact? It is easy and tempting to get
lost in the weeds on political choices. That's why there needs to
be a very basic focus on clear objectives, goals, and priorities for the
use of limited resources for impact. Will this action advance the
cause of greater political accountability to individual voters?
What else can we do to help win this fight? If it is worth doing,
then get organized and fight to win rather than just give some money
away and hope for the best. Pick your battles, and then fight to
win them. |
|
Document the
progress as committed members and resources grow |
|
Deterrence is not credible and effective unless the capability is
proven. To be taken seriously by politicians, it needs to be clear
that the donor groups have the resources and resolve necessary to either
support their victory or defeat them. That doesn't mean that the
donors have to start swinging many election campaigns immediately, or
giving a lot of money away. It needs to be proven that they have
the capability in place. All options are on the table if they want
to escalate rather than listen. |
| The
first step is to document the local group. The second is to roll
that data up with other groups, and then keep track of it month by month
to maintain momentum and measure the impact of actions. |
For
example, at the local level there could be a very simple survey of
members each month:
| How much have you already set aside for future
political donations? (savings) |
| How much more do you expect to set aside next
month? (savings rate) |
| How much have you already donated this year?
(spending) |
This adds up to the total donations of the group for
the year, the remaining funds, and the expected rate at which those
funds will grow with just the existing members. Over time, as
membership grows and members set aside or actually donate more money,
this documents the growth of resources. |
Another documentary task is to check whether action recommendations were
followed or not. For example, suppose that the group recommends
that donors contribute to a candidate. Ask later:
| Did they choose to make such a contribution? |
| If so, how much? |
This helps to ensure that action recommendations were,
in fact, supported by the members. If not, there need be no reason
since these are personal choices, but the purpose of the feedback is to
improve the quality of the action recommendations. It is pointless
to keep making recommendations which the members evidently don't want to
support. That suggests the donors either aren't happy with the
recommendations, or have other priorities or limitations which need to
be better understood. |
Finally, the local summaries can easily roll up into state and national
totals without disclosing the identity or actions of individual
donors.
| Members this month |
| Total funds now available as a group |
| Additional funds planned by members next month |
| Total donations made by members this year |
| Local response to specific action recommendations
(how many donors, and $ total) |
| Group actions planned or under consideration to
promote local political accountability |
For example, the local group may have chosen to
support a targeted campaign somewhere else. In this case, the
local response to the action recommendation could be tallied with other
groups who responded to the same suggestion. This would document
coordinated efforts beyond local ones.
Aside from donations to specific campaigns, the donors
can obviously support other things - such as local protest rallies,
meetings with candidates or elected officials, fundraising initiatives
in support of endorsed candidates, coordination of efforts with other
local organizations, local outreach meetings and initiatives to attract
more members, etc. The growth of membership and available funds as
well as donations made should be simple indicators of the potential
influence of the donors forum. This should also be tied back to
their agreed local objectives and realistic goals, as above. |
|
Be patient.
Look for good opportunities to have the desired impact. |
| Smart
donors won't want to just spread their money around. They will
want to have an impact. The ongoing work of the
members and the coordinators who help to network such groups across the
state or country is therefore to keep track of important political
developments of likely concern to the members, and quickly consult with
each other to develop recommendations for action by such groups.
There are many choices in that regard - whether to
intervene, when and how best to do so, and also to assess the chances of
success with the available resources. Choose your battles, as they
say.
Not all good candidates will merit a lot of support in
the context of other priorities. Similarly, there will be some
despicable candidates who aren't worth trying to defeat. Realistic
goals and priorities will need to be established as a group, but
individual donors will remain free to support whoever they want at any
time, and to not support group recommendations with their own donations
if they dissent. |
| The
ongoing networking activities among members should help to alert donors
to important situations and strategic opportunities of which they might
otherwise have been unaware. For example, donors across the
country may not have realized how important a race in a particular state
may be, or know the candidates well enough to want to support them.
The sharing of information across many local groups can therefore be
critical as a way to achieve a much greater impact with limited
resources. Many donors will have neither the
time nor inclination to try to keep track of everything which is
happening politically across the country, or even in their state or
local areas. They may need to invest in some support work in that
regard to help organize the information which they want to see, and
bring timely action proposals to them which are tailored to their own
individual concerns. Over time, the groups may therefore evolve to
better serve the information and decision expectations of those donors.
In the formative stages of the first year, however,
there is value in keeping the decision process very simple and fast.
As in an entrepreneurial venture, it will need to adapt as it ramps up
in scale. Think of the early participants as the "angel investors"
who get it started and guide the growth to success. |
|
Help swing key
elections in 2010 and then keep growing that capability for 2012. |
| This
is an action-oriented, results-oriented surge of independent voters and
donors to defend basic American values against unsustainable statist
abuses of government power and resources. There will need to be a
sharp focus on achieving a decisive impact on key political races
instead of simply scattering resources so widely across many races that
their impact is negligible. |
| The
other key point is that this puts a process in place which does not end
with the 2010 election. That is just the starting point for the
accountability process. The donors need to stick together and keep
setting aside resources which can be used just as strategically in 2012
races - including the candidate selection and primary processes which
lead up to those races. |
| In
that context, 2010 is like a weapons test to prove that the deterrent
threat is credible. The targeting needs to be swift, precise, and
have an obvious impact on those arrogant politicians who have become
representatives of party leaders and special interest groups.
This empowers the local voters to support public servants
who they trust to better respect the people who they represent, and the
Constitutional limits on their enumerated powers. The point of the
Donor Forums isn't to become yet another special interest group lobbying
for their own advantages by influencing elected officials. The
point is to restore the accountability of politicians to individual
voters and win this fight by again pledging
to each other our lives,
our fortunes, and our sacred honor. |
