Prof. Teachout's tweets announcing her appointment said she is "getting ready for 2016" and she wants to "start building ASAP for the 2016 corruption fight."
Thus far in 2015, MAYDAY's activity has been limited to contacting current members of Congress to ask them to commit to reform.
Now that MAYDAY is going to turn its attention to the 2016 elections, I think Prof. Teachout will have some difficult conundrums to figure out.
MAYDAY's object is to elect a reform minded Congress by 2016.
But will MAYDAY be able to allow Congressional candidates to come on the MAYDAY social media in order for the candidates to tell about themselves, and for MAYDAY supporters to learn about the candidates and make decisions about which candidates to support in the elections?
The reason there is a question is the "coordination rules" under Federal campaign finance law that are applicable to superPACs, such as MAYDAY. MAYDAY is going to have to decide how MAYDAY will interpret those rules and to what extent Congressional candidates will be allowed on the MAYDAY social media.
It would seem that MAYDAY's preference would be not to ban Congressional candidates from the MAYDAY social media, but MAYDAY may have to ban Congressional candidates.
If candidates are banned, MAYDAY supporters would need to go elsewhere to interact with candidates, and that would reduce MAYDAY's role.
That's conundrum #1.
The campaign finance reform issue is not left against right, Republicans against Democrats; rather it is us voter outsiders against Washington insiders.
MAYDAY has said this repeatedly, including in this tweet yesterday:
This view calls for unity of voters to elect Congressional candidates who will take action on behalf of reform.w/ support from both parties, we CAN stop corruption. The fight isn't left vs right, it's insiders vs outsiders! | http://t.co/EdDQMo5efd— MAYDAY.US (@MAYDAYUS) July 30, 2015
The conundrum is this:
Voters have differing views on important issues, such as climate change, immigration, and privacy versus security in the war against terrorism and battling crime. If a Congressional candidate takes positions on other important issues, many voters may not support the candidate on that basis, and this undermines the needed unity in the struggle of us voter outsiders against Washington insiders.
On the other hand, a Congressional candidate who stands firm that Congress must be fixed first, that voter unity on that must not be undermined, and for that reason the candidate declines to take positions on other issues, in all likelihood, is going to attract little or no voter support.
This is such a conundrum that Prof. Lessig seems nearly ready to abandon the effort at the Congressional level and is propounding an almost "Hail Mary" at the Presidential level, with his idea of a trustee President. See Frodo Baggins for President and On the Trustee President: Not EITHER/OR but BOTH/AND.
I look forward to seeing how Prof. Teachout sorts through this conundrum on behalf of MAYDAY, in the form of MAYDAY making, or not making, advocacy or recommendations relative to achieving the goal of electing a reform minded Congress by 2016.
I don't know if this is a conundrum, but consider how MAYDAY's announcement launches with:
Fight against corruption in the 2016 elections.
Contribute now. We need you. We need to build power so we can demand that politicians do something about how private money is destroying democracy.
* * * *
* * * *
Banning Congressional candidates from the MAYDAY social media would, I think, lessen grassroots interest in what MAYDAY is doing.
I look forward to seeing what Prof. Teachout comes up with on the "people power" front of grassroots action.