Consider Steve Stokes' initiation of his 2016 #WaveofIndependents Campaign, together with the below email interchanges which have taken place between Steve and me, on which MAYDAY has been copied.
Basically, MAYDAY has been solicited to comment on Steve's campaign and say whether or not MAYDAY believes Steve's efforts can help MAYDAY's plan and whether or not interested MAYDAY supporters ought to involve themselves with Steve's efforts.
This is after MAYDAY's inability to comment on whether synergy with Bernie is a good idea or not. See Can I get any help from MAYDAY?.
MAYDAY's goal is to elect a reform minded Congress in 2016. How much time can go by with MAYDAY limiting itself to communicating to current Representatives in Congress, and not turn attention to the 2016 Congressional races and candidates?
Isn't it time for MAYDAY to consider and make decisions about something like Steve Stokes' campaign and give guidance about the same to MAYDAY supporters?
I think it is.
Others will need to decide what they think.
|
Jul 13 (2 days ago)
 | | ||
FYI, Steve. I sent the below tweet message to MAYDAY supporters who have recently tweeted using the #lead4reform hashtag:
MAYDAY supporters should consider Steve Stokes' 2016 WaveOfIndependents Campaign. http://campaignfinancereformers. blogspot.com/2015/07/2016- waveofindependents-campaign. html
I got 100 page views of the tweet link.
I have no idea what MAYDAY will think of your 2016 WaveOfIndependents Campaign, whether MAYDAY will publicize or promote it in any way, and/or MAYDAY will allow you to post about it on the MAYDAY social media.
Sincerely,
Rob Shattuck
| Jul 13 (2 days ago) | | ||
Thanks for posting Rob. Are you thinking about running against Gary Palmer in #AL06?
What does it take to get an independent candidate on the ballot in Alabama?
-Steve
|
11:20 AM (21 hours ago)
| | ||
Dear Steve,
· Big agri-business money opposing labeling of GMOs.
· Militarization of our police departments.
· Civil asset forfeiture by citizens who have not been charged with a crime.
· Unconstitutional surveillance to control the population which is oppressed by Washington Insiders.
· Partisanship which distracts and divides to the benefit of Washington Insiders.
The answer to your question is that I suspect not.
This is due to a nut which I think cannot be cracked, and which besets Prof. Lessig and MAYDAY as well.
Prof. Lessig's message basically continues as: The money corruption in politics is the first issue. Until that is fixed, our President and Congress are and will be impaired in addressing the other big issues confronting the American people. The American people know this, and it is high up on their list, if not at the top, that the country must do something about the money corruption in politics.
In a recent July 4th talk to the NHRebellion (video here), Prof, Lessig says there needs to more effort to get the politicians to talk about the money corruption. While the politicians don't want to talk about it. Prof. Lessig says progress has been made by the reform movement, and the 2016 Presidential race is notable because practically every candidate in the race is talking about the issue. While this is good, the problem, Prof. Lessig indicates, is that fixing the corruption is only one item on the candidates' lists. Lessig even mentions that Bernie Sanders seems to put reform as something that can be taken care of later. Thus, Prof. Lessig says,the reform movement must press harder on the candidates to make reform the first issue it needs to be.
How can it come about that the reform issue will become the first issue it needs to be?
In trying to answer this, keep in mind: "What is the reason the politicians don't want to talk about the corruption of money in politics?"
A quotation from a Forbes article which MAYDAY.US has on its front page is suggestive. The quotation says:
The mortal struggle at hand today is not between the right and the left. It is not between Republicans and Democrats. It is not between the Congress and the president. It is between us (currently outsiders to our own government) voters and the Washington Insiders.
That is dire.
If accurate, massive public mobilization would seem needed. See MAYDAY's 2015 plan and public mobilization, Soul searching re Gov't By The People Act, and Where's our massive public mobilization.
Further, the mobilization needs to be unified. The Washington Insiders will work to undermine unity, because unity is the one thing that can defeat them.
If Congressional campaigns are not "first issue" campaigns, and are instead multiple issue campaigns, the other issues will operate to undermine unity, because of significant voter divisions that are likely to exist on the other issues.
On the other side, as you and I have discussed, "first issue" campaigns are difficult, if not impossible, to win (or even do well at), because voters will not vote for a candidate who is running such a campaign and who seeks unity by minimizing taking positions on other issues. My campaign in 2014 is good evidence of that difficulty.
In the face of the foregoing conundrum, Prof. Lessig's "trustee President" idea is almost as if he has concluded that the situation is impossible at the Congressional level.
I have spent the past 16 months trying to publicize in the Alabama 6th Congressional district the problem of the money corruption in politics. I cannot discern that I have made any headway. At this time, I believe it would be pointless to challenge Gary Palmer, and. unless something changes in the next few months, I do not expect to run again, as an Independent or otherwise, in the 6th Congressional district.
To answer your question about what it would take to get on the ballot as an Independent, I believe a number of signatures from qualified voters would be needed that is equal to 3% or more of the votes cast in the 6th district election in 2014, which signatures must be obtained before the 2016 primary date in Alabama.
I hope, in your 2016 #WaveOfIndependents Campaign for getting money out of politics and restoring democracy in America , you have more optimism than I currently have.
Sincerely,
Rob
| 12:20 PM (20 hours ago) | | ||
Rob,
If you are not running, can you focus your efforts on talking to professionals to find individuals of like mind willing to run?
We should target college professors, doctors, real estate brokers, business owners, insurance agents, lawyers.
To me it is incomprehensible that an individual can be genuinely against money in politics and not be against the negative effects that money creates.
· Out of control military-industrial machine. Blanket authorization for use of military force (AUMF), intervention in Syria, unlimited, unaudited military budgets.· Big agri-business money opposing labeling of GMOs.
· Militarization of our police departments.
· Civil asset forfeiture by citizens who have not been charged with a crime.
· Unconstitutional surveillance to control the population which is oppressed by Washington Insiders.
· Partisanship which distracts and divides to the benefit of Washington Insiders.
We must be able to find ordinary Americans whether Democrat, Republican or independent who agree on these issues.
We need leaders to run otherwise these issues will not be discussed.
Adam Schiff recently made a fuzzy statement in support of GMO activists only after I called him out on voting for H.R. 933 Mar 21, 2013 (113th Congress) Monsanto Protection Act.
I publicly opposed the Citizens United decision and called for an amendment to overturn in my last campaign.
Now Schiff has taken the position that he supports reform of Citizens United.
Of course Schiff stated that he supported NSA surveillance reform and then on May 13, 2015 voted for the USA Freedom Act / Patriot Act extension.
Please help me find credible, committed candidates in Alabama that support the six issues above along with strong opposition to Citizens United.
Best regards,
Steve Stokes
|
2:29 PM (18 hours ago)
| | ||
Dear Steve,
I appreciate your quick reply to me.
I am going to hold off a few days (maybe even a week) in making a response, because I would like to provide MAYDAY an opportunity to say something first.
There is a good chance MAYDAY will decline to say anything.
If MAYDAY is willing to say something, what it says could affect what I say.
If MAYDAY is not willing to say anything, I would interpret that as expression by MAYDAY that MAYDAY does not consider trying to recruit candidates in the manner you are urging as being helpful for MAYDAY's carrying out its plan. MAYDAY's not considering it helpful, whether or not MAYDAY gives an explanation of reasons, would probably suffice in essence for my answer as well, provided I might try to articulate a rationale (which you can probably derive from my preceding email).
So, please, if we may, let's wait on MAYDAY for a few days..
Sincerely,
Rob
No comments:
Post a Comment