|
Money matters in American politics - whether we like it or not.
The Tea Party rallies are fun, but we need to coordinate individual
political campaign donations for greater strategic impact rather than consolidate
money for
power as in traditional PAC's, 527's, or party and campaign
bureaucracies. The idea is to empower individual voters
to have a greater impact through coordinated donor action.
The concept is explained further below. If you like this idea, set up your own local social networking group of principled
independent political donors in your community.
A suggested action plan is to implement this idea by
organizing local Tea Party Donor Forums
or Investment Clubs. Instead of organizing protests or trying in
vain to be heard or respected by the politicians or their parties, the
plan is to organize many independent donors. Let relevant
politicians try to win their support as a group of individual defenders
of a more limited role for government. Just as
the Tea Party rallies have caused the "silent majority" to realize that
"we surround them", and should be unafraid to be "silent no more" and
speak truth to "power", the next step is to organize independent
political donors and surge resources to help elect more accountable
candidates. |
|
A million
angry voters is obviously not enough. Money talks. Organize
the money. |
| On
April 15, 2009 there were an estimated
600,000 - 800,000 participants in the Tax Day Tea Party protests
in 800+ cities, although some sources claimed even higher numbers.
On September 12, there were at least 250,000+
at the 9/12 March on Washington DC, although crowd estimates varied
widely. There have been plenty of other local
Tea Party rallies during the year, as well as the many health care town
hall events in August. For every person who was able and willing
to invest the time and effort to help organize or show up for such
events, there are clearly many others who share their concerns.
Tens of millions of Americans may share many of
the basic concerns and values as expressed in the Tea Party movement,
even if they may disagree as individuals over specific policy issues or
have diverse opinions of specific politicians and the wisdom or folly of
their actions. This is not a movement in which we all have to pass
a litmus test to ensure that we qualify as loyal drones. We are
free to disagree.
We need to bring millions of Americans together as
talented individuals, and then trust each other to work
together creatively to achieve better local and overall outcomes, as we
do in our business careers.
Ours is not a top-down authoritarian power hierarchy
to impose compliance. We the people collaborate voluntarily and
delegate authority up within Constitutional limits on power. We
expect accountability for effective and cost-efficient performance in
use of our money by those who we have entrusted temporarily at all
levels of government services to perform those few tasks which we have
delegated up to them.
It is up to us to make our political process more
accountable - not our "leaders". If "we the people" are truly in
charge here, then "we the people" need to work harder to fix our
accountability process. |
|
How much money will it take for
politicians to pay attention? |
|
Think about it. Suppose that 1 million Americans
chose to set aside $5 per week to invest in their own political
interests. That's $5 million per week - or over $250 million
per year. The politicians may prefer to ignore 1 million
Americans at Tea Party protests, but they will not ignore such
money. What if 10 million Americans, out
of 100+ million voters in a national election, invested $10 per week?
That's $100 million per week, or $50 billion per year, by
networking those voters who can afford to invest $500+ per year.
We wouldn't need many such donors to join up before politicians would
notice.
The key is to organize the money flow without
losing individual control and accountability over it. The
other key is to coordinate action so that the political
investments are carefully targeted for results. If the money is
widely scattered, then the impact will be diminished. The
coordination and impact needs to be visible, even
if the control of the money remains a completely
individual personal decision.
Think of it like the "melt the phones" surge
initiatives. If money talks, speak up. Coordinate
many individual donations to swiftly have a big impact on targeted
individual races. Instead of giving all the money to party leaders
or PACs to distribute as they please to advance their own agenda and
power, keep control and spend it wisely to promote greater
accountability back to the network of donors.
There are already "donor forums" among philanthropists
and family foundations to coordinate their charitable grants for greater
impact while maintaining separate control of the decisions according to
their own priorities. The point is that voters can easily
collaborate now in a similar way for political donations, keeping
control of their money instead of just giving it to organizations which
have failed them. |
|
Don't accept the
failure rate and invest in more failure. Fix the quality control
process. |
|
Instead of creating a new hierarchical political organization or
reinforcing the existing ones without fixing their many faults first, we
can develop a better quality control process for political donations.
We won't get campaign finance reform from the politicians. We have
to create it for ourselves, and organize better than the "special
interests". We surround them. The existing
political process has demonstrably failed to deliver better results in
election after election. We need to more directly engage those
concerned citizens who are willing to work together through a very
decentralized and more directly accountable social network to achieve a
better outcome which respects the diversity of their interests.
The politicians may not listen yet, but they will. Money talks.
Failure is not rewarded with increasing amounts of money to produce even
more failures.
In business jargon, we need a more customer-centric,
demand-driven process which engages voters and responds with greater
agility and cost-effectiveness to win in this competitive government
service market.
If we want limited government,
then we need to create a process which demonstrably demands it.
The Tea Party tactics and initial
counterinsurgency strategy were a starting
point for this fight, but now we need to invest in
the America we want to create and create a better process to
deliver and sustain it. |
| We
need to develop more rapid and direct accountability to voters in this
networked world. Instead of just making political donations,
volunteering extensive time and effort, and then voting and hoping for
the best, voters need to create a more efficient local feedback
mechanism for their own quality control purposes.
We need to collaborate to hold candidates and
elected officials accountable as a continuous quality control process,
rather than just check periodically on their failures and new promises
every few years. How many companies do you know that just
check their performance every 2 - 4 - 6 years? Do they keep
investing more and more in failed processes, products, and services? |
| As
consumers, we would never continue to buy the same defective products
repeatedly by choice. We would soon change how we make such
purchase decisions, and who we trust as suppliers.
Failure is not acceptable. Poor performance is not
inevitable unless we ignore and accept it. We can't just vilify
the supplier, or the defective product. We have to change
our own buying behavior.
Unfortunately, there is little real political
accountability to voters for how either campaign money or taxes are
spent by the candidates, elected officials, or political organizations
(party, PAC, lobbyists, etc.). Government and the political
process have become giant Ponzi
schemes in which individuals are conned into thinking that they will
be getting more and more for nothing until the whole scheme collapses
for lack of more gullible victims to fleece. We have to say
no to the con artists as the first step to stop it. |
|
The Tea Party
movement can flip the money and power pyramid upside down. |
|
Instead of funding the power and ambitions of those at the top of the
existing political parties to play with other people's money, we need to
empower those independent individuals who could provide political
donations to retain greater control over how and when it is spent, and
for what purpose. |
 |
| The
above "flip the pyramid" sketch illustrates the concept. In the
traditional political process, individual party-line voters have little
influence between elections, and independent voters have little at all,
unless they are active donors to specific political campaigns or are
more involved through their party organization or special interest
groups, as in the example of organized groups of active campaign
workers. |
| The
traditional structure consolidates money and power as you go up the
pyramid scheme. Those at the bottom may be getting fleeced, but
those at the higher levels focus mainly on the level directly above or
below their own. That is where they routinely interact to organize
and raise or spend money according to their own perceived interests and
priorities. Candidates value the support of those who are above
them in the scheme, because they have more money and power. They
only venture down the pyramid to interact with individual donors, as at
fundraising events, but rarely feel the need to be directly responsive
to those individual voters who may or may not have voted for them or
choose to do so again. They may give them perfunctory responses,
but their career path relies on currying favor at the top, not the
bottom. |
|
Contrast that to a corporate organizational structure, which may have a
very flat structure and delegate most resources and authority as well as
accountability for performance results down to the level of direct
interaction with customers. The total organization relies on the
performance across that foundation, and at all levels of it, to be
cost-efficient and effective while consistently delivering on the
promise of the brand through the work with customers. A brilliant
CEO or CFO with grand strategic visions or slogans can't save a company
which isn't constantly innovating in response to their market and
executing well on the plans to deliver or exceed customer expectations.
The political party structure is more like a Ponzi Scheme or multi-level
marketing scheme, in which each layer needs to sucker more people to
succeed. |
| The
graphic at right above "flips" this scheme in terms of independent
donors by networking them to become a more visible force in fundraising,
especially at the local level where there may typically be half (or
more) as many independent voters as those who are loyal to one party or
the other. Rather than sending their money up the traditional
pyramid of either the party structure or an individual campaign, the
individuals set their money aside and then collaborate to dole it out for
greater combined impact at the same time and for the candidates of their
choice. This creates an identifiable base of independent donors
who both parties and individual donors can be expected to want to
attract, especially if it grows steadily over time.
By not funding the traditional party structures, this
creates more direct accountability between the candidates and the
individual voters / donors. In short, the national party leaders
and national special interest groups may wind up with less power over
the state and local party organizations or the local candidates because
the independent voters are well-organized and careful about who they
support. |
| This
avoids fighting to change either party against the entrenched
self-interests of the existing individuals at every organizational
level. It avoids trying to persuade incumbents or candidates to
change their behavior and listen to individual voters instead of the few
influential people who seem to have always been crucial to their
political careers. It creates a new process
which draws candidates to seek the support of the independent voters at
the local level because of their fundraising potential at least, and
also because of their potential as a group to swing local election
results. Even if voters are split 40 - 40 - 20 between the two
main parties and independents, those 20% independents can swing victory
for either party - especially if they are more motivated to vote
together as a group rather than split 50-50 between the two party
candidates.
There are obviously some places
where the parties can reliably deliver more than 50% of the vote for
their candidates, and thus act with relative impunity, but there are
enough tight races nationally for an organized independent movement of
potential campaign donors and volunteers to
be very influential and attract better candidates without actually trying to
create a third party and thereby splitting the vote. |
| The
key is to organize enough independent donors and voters for the local
party organizations and candidates to want their support, even if the
state and national party organizations and candidates may ignore them at
first. Instead
of asking the politicians to listen, let the politicians ask for support
from a well-organized independent group that won't just accept whatever
candidates the parties offer and then go away quietly when
the election is over. It's like the old joke
about two men who are chased by a bear. You don't have to be faster
than the bear. You just have to be the faster than the other guy.
In this case, independents need to become better organized locally
than either party, and that includes fundraising and actively supporting
good candidates rather than just protesting. If this starts to
swing key elections, both parties will notice. |
|
Illustrative
example: Tea Party Investment Club or "political donor forum" |
| For
simplicity, suppose that your local community has over 10,000 active
voters out of perhaps a total population of 25,000+, and that those
active voters are roughly split 40 - 40 - 20 between the two major
political parties and independent voters. That means there are
roughly 2000 independent but still active voters, many of whom may be
frustrated with the candidates and elected politicians of both major
parties. |
|
Suppose that you could get 5% of those 2000 independent voters to join a
"Tea Party Investment Club" or "political donor forum" and commit to saving $5 or $10 per week (or
however much they can afford) to establish a local "war chest" for
coordinated action in support of the candidates of their choice.
That would be 100 members, setting aside $500 - $1000 in
total per week, or $25,000 - $50,000 per year.
By the time that the 2010 election comes around, that
could already be a significant amount for many races. By 2012 it
could grow further, and perhaps more donors could be persuaded to join
up. |
| Now,
suppose that there are 1000 such clubs across the country (as there were
Tea Party rallies), each of comparable size. Suddenly that's $25 -
$50 million per year in national fundraising capacity just by networking
100,000 individual donors out of the millions of Tea Party enthusiasts
nationwide. Of course, there are thousands of
communities where such clubs could be organized. Many Americans
may not want to organize or participate in protest rallies, but they may
be willing to get together to coordinate their political donations - if
they retain direct control over all such donations. |
| The
point is that each investor (voter / potential political campaign donor)
would retain complete individual control over his or her donation
decision. The local investment club would simply keep track of how
much all of the members report to have already saved and set aside for such
donations, and the rate at which they intend to keep setting more money
aside each month.
The local club of Tea Party investors would get
together on a regular basis - whether as a physical meeting or through
online social networking - to share ideas and keep growing the
membership and their combined potential "war chest". They would
also share ideas about how and when to use that money, but each member
would still control their own money and make their own choices about how
to use it. |
| At
the start, the members could voluntarily identify whether they already
made any political donations during the 2008 or 2009 election cycles.
That would quickly show politicians how much may be at stake by paying
attention to this group - and whether the donors regret the choice they
made last time. In other words, start by the new donors listening
to those past donors about their experience. |
| At
the state and national level, coordinators would just need
to keep a monthly tally of all the clubs and their reported resources
and monthly inflows and outflows as a matter of information - without
any direct accountability for which candidates or organizations the
local clubs and individuals may have chosen to support. The point
is to document their combined impact without exerting
control over their money. The state and national coordinators
could suggest worthy initiatives for the clubs to support, but it would
be up to the local clubs and their individual members to decide how to
use their money. |
| For
example, suppose that a particular national campaign is deemed to be
very worthy of support. The national and state coordinators could
quickly alert all the clubs and encourage them to take action together,
and then report back what they have done for that specific action
proposal so that it can be tallied nationally. That would
demonstrate the capability of the network to coordinate
rapid strategic actions and keep track of the impact so
that a surge of targeted donations would not simply be lost among many
others at the time. |
| Since
the donation process would remain a personal, individual choice, it
could be done through the usual online fundraising process of
candidates. An action proposal could be distributed to club
members with a link to the donation page and the supporting rationale
for the action. There could also be a simple reporting mechanism
for individuals or clubs to voluntarily report their donations so that
they can be tallied, while the campaign would remain responsible for the
usual donation limits and reporting process for compliance with federal
or state requirements. The clubs would just be encouraging a lot
of people to donate at the same time, but the donations would all remain
individual actions. |
| It
shouldn't take too many such surges of coordinated donations for
politicians to notice that the Tea Party supporters are prepared to
invest in changing the political process for greater accountability to
the individual voter rather than special interest groups or political
party or PAC fundraising organizations. They
would likely be keen to cultivate relationships with such clubs and
their coordinators, but the point is that they would still need to
convince the individual voters to support their campaigns. The
state and national coordinators would not become "kingmakers" with
control of large amounts of money. Instead, they would just be
able to help relevant politicians to quickly reach many potential
individual donors - or to be in a position to help spread the word
quickly about those candidates who do not seem to be worthy of such
support. Individuals could still give to whoever they please,
regardless of such advice, but the candidates would quickly figure out
that a non-endorsement might limit their fundraising potential. |
|
Conclusion:
Instead of a third party, organize influential and independent donor
groups |
|
The above example just refers to targeting the
hypothetical 20% of independent but active voters in a community -
without necessarily targeting the traditional Republican or Democratic
base of donors at all. Of course, attracting their top donors of
the past would also be noticed quickly. There
are also typically many frustrated non-voters who might be encouraged to
participate in such a club as a way for their voice to be heard. |
|
Given the rapid fundraising potential, it is a safe bet
that candidates of both parties would be eager to try to make a pitch
directly to their local Tea Party Investment Clubs or independent donor
forums for support, as they already attempt through their own local
party organizations or campaigns for fundraising events. Instead
of waiting for these politicians and their campaign staff to organize
and hold open town halls or other local events and let Tea Party
enthusiasts show up and get inside or be recognized to ask questions,
relevant politicians would soon want to meet with these potential donors
to solicit their support. It would be a lot easier to be invited
to such independent meetings than to organize their own.
Unlike traditional party fundraising events such as
exclusive dinners with a high price per plate just to get in the room to
listen to the politician make a speech, this would flip that
relationship. The club members would decide individually after the
event whether they want to give generously to the candidate or not.
Those members who can't afford or choose not to donate a lot would still
merit the same respect and accountability at the event as those who
could afford to throw money at them. Instead of struggling to get
the politician to respect independent voters, they would leave with
empty pockets if they don't. |
|
In this context, the independent Tea Party participants
would not be creating a third party. They would be
helping to hold any candidates directly accountable
through the individual choices by each active voter and campaign donor
who chooses to get involved in the club. This creates a
local quality control feedback process for voters to attract
their politicians and then hold them accountable over the years
- rather than just give them money or votes at election time and hope
for the best. The local clubs can be trusted to figure out who is
trustworthy, and who needs to be replaced. This creates a local
competitive marketplace for reaching independent voters and
donors who should interest both parties. If the
club keeps growing to attract many more members and demonstrably set
aside a large "war chest", the politicians as well as their party
organizations will wake up and listen - especially if the group is even
more effective at local fundraising and coordinated state or national
action than the political parties or special interest groups. The
challenge will be to outperform those old political organizations, which
are what have created the problem through a lack of real accountability
to so many frustrated voters. |
|
Background
information about Investment Clubs - just one way to organize local
donors |
|
National
Association of Investors Corporation - Better Investing Community -
This non-profit organization shares information about how to set up and
operate traditional investment clubs, and also sells some services for
clubs and members, and publications related to them. See
their PDF brochure "How to start an investment club" in the FAQ section
of their website. Note that there are also
"self-directed investment clubs" in which members meet to discuss
investment information, share ideas, and suggest choices, but then make
their own individual decisions through separate personal investment
accounts. That contrasts to operating like a partnership as many
clubs do, in which case members vote on investment decisions about any
new investments or portfolio changes as a group each month.
The point is that it is not necessary to actually pool
investments in a partnership, as in many of the traditional investment
clubs. Instead, each member can simply maintain their own
investment account individually, and the club may merely keep track of
how the group as a whole is doing (by any voluntary sharing of
information by members about the current status of their individual
accounts). In other words, this would show how much the club as a
whole controls, but all of it would still be controlled
individually rather than as a group decision.
That avoids all of the legal partnership structure or
IRS reporting complications, because the club is then simply operating
as a group of individuals who are exercising their right of free speech
to share information about what they are doing separately as
individuals. Instead, each individual looks after their own
accounts separately, and just shares information.
For example, if a club has 50 members who have all set
aside an average of $500 as an investment account to support future
political contributions, then that means that the club has a "war chest"
of $25,000 available through the membership, but no direct control over
the investment or distribution of any of these funds for political or
other purposes. Instead, members would just get together
periodically to discuss what they should do as individuals, whether
through online networking, conference calls, "call to action" email
alerts, or traditional meetings.
Note that this available "war chest" need not be
donated to political campaigns, parties, or PACs or other groups.
For example, the individuals could still do whatever they want with the
money, including such things as helping to defray the costs of events
such as Tea Parties, candidate forums, etc. Campaign contributions
would be subject to the usual limits for individual donations.
A key point is that the "investment club" concept
introduces the idea of setting aside a small amount on a regular basis
to support greater political involvement. Think of it like
political "tithing", or union dues without the union, or simply as a
political savings account which becomes as routine as the withholding of
taxes - without giving up any control over how that money is eventually
spent for political purposes. In effect, each individual member is
saving resources for worthy future campaigns. The club is
therefore building up a larger "war chest" each month of potential
donations which can be quickly encouraged, but not controlled.
This assures that members who don't agree with some of the club
suggestions won't find themselves bankrolling campaigns which they do
not support, unlike the traditional political party or PAC organizations
which enjoy their control over other people's money.
In the case of the partnership structure, which limits
how many partners there can be and whether they are really "active" or
"passive" investors, note the additional tax reporting requirements (SS4
to set up a taxpayer ID as a business entity - EIN - and then annual
filing of Form 1065 returns and K1 forms for the tax records of each
member). By contrast, the information-sharing approach of
"self-directed" clubs is far simpler. |
| US
Securities and Exchange Commission (SEC) general
background information on investment clubs - refer to their
publication "Investment
Clubs and the SEC". Note the restrictions on "passive" members
as well as on having more than 100 members, as well as other constraints
which apply to operating like a partnership.
There are also state regulations to consider, but the general idea is to
operate as a club of individual investors who are sharing common
interests and information, rather than operating as an investment
company which is selling shares or professional investment services. |
|
|
