Monday, April 25, 2016

Scratch MAYDAY; what's left at Cong'l level

I think it is fair to say that MAYDAY.US has called it quits on its Congressional plan that it initiated in 2014.

For evidence of this, see the MAYDAY reddit discussion, which was initiated 4 days ago, and which appears at https://www.reddit.com/r/MaydayPAC/comments/4fri4z/after_all_that_has_transpired_im_not_convinced/ This reddit discussion is copied and pasted at the end of this entry.

From said discussion, one could conclude that MAYDAY probably ought to close up shop and send its supporters over to Represent.Us.

This development leaves a gaping hole for trying to accomplish anything in connection with the 2016 Congressional elections.

DemocracySpring may step in to do battle in the 2016 Congressional elections. Time is needed to see what is forthcoming from DemocracySpring.

I speculate that MAYDAY's problems are that it has scant funding and it has very few grassroots activists at work.

I started this blog in November, and I have not yet thrown in the towel.

Currently, I am trying to push for Senator Sanders to become the leader of this effort. See Going for broke in NY State primary.

Senator Sanders' campaign hangs in the balance between (i) folding himself in with Hillary Clinton and the Democratic establishment (assuming he will not be the nominee), and (ii) continuing in an independent way to push and grow the movement he started by running for President. How this choice for Senator Sanders plays out will probably take until the convention in July and perhaps longer.

If Senator Sanders chooses to be the leader of this citizen effort, that would provide great impetus for efforts to achieve progress in connection with the 2016 Congressional elections.

If Senator Sanders does not choose to lead this citizen effort, that greatly diminishes its chances.

Regardless, this citizen effort is an option at the Congressional level that remains following the hole that MAYDAY has created by leaving the field.

Possibly DemocracySpring will consider this useful in trying to do battle in the 2016 Congressional elections.


_______________________________
[below is copied and pasted from https://www.reddit.com/r/MaydayPAC/comments/4fri4z/after_all_that_has_transpired_im_not_convinced/ ]
After all that has transpired, I'm not convinced MaydayPAC is the way forward. (self.MaydayPAC)
submitted  by ImagineJesusPooping
With all the losses in the last few cycles, even if the movement hadn't run out of steam it would still appear rather fruitless.
What is the way forward for people who care about this issue? WolfPAC? Attending these useless demonstrations? Very disheartening.
all 11 comments
sorted by: 
best
[–]benjamindsinger 8 points  
To ImagineJesusPooping and Wulkes:
First, thanks for all your support in the first iteration of MAYDAY.US. It was an ambitious idea, and thus got a lot of people excited.
And yes, the cross-partisan approach is essential for national progress.
The new MAYDAY.US has a different strategy towards a different theory of change.
No longer are we working on top-down change: Congress has almost never led the way on social movements. Change starts at local, then state levels, and once it reaches a critical mass, national change follows. See here:http://www.bloomberg.com/graphics/2015-pace-of-social-change/
And unfortunately, about half the states, and many major cities, do not have a ballot initiative process that allows the people to pass reform directly.
So we are now focused on electing candidates to enact reform in city/town councils, then state legislatures, THEN Congress. Once we get a critical mass of states, we show that reform is working and shift national political will. Then national reform becomes a winnable fight.
OK, and what about expensive ads? And what about waving signs around? The truth is, TV ads and mailers help, but are not as effective as personal conversations with voters. And waving signs around might get some media attention, but it's also not the effective political action that gets out the vote for reformers.
Both of those can be part of a larger strategy, but can't succeed on their own.
Running an effective campaign is much harder.
So we're starting MAYDAY.US State Teams.
These MAYDAY.US State Teams will do 4 things:
  1. Endorse reformers
  2. Organize citizens who care about money in politics to join the campaign
  3. Elect reformers by getting out the vote for them (this also goes for defeating corrupt politicians)
  4. Hold elected officials accountable to pass reform, with the threat of losing their jobs if they don't
And MAYDAY.US State Teams have 1 Team Lead, 1-2 Deputy Team Leads, and 4 subteams towards those goals:
  1. State Welcoming Team (to build the movement)
  2. State Activism Team (to run campaigns)
  3. State Press Team (to amplify the message to voters and politicians)
  4. State Digital Team (to support the other subteams)
What do you think of this new plan?
If that sounds like something you'd want to be a part of, you can join at http://act.mayday.us/join_our_teams
[–]ImagineJesusPooping[S] 1 point  
we are now focused on electing candidates to enact reform in city/town councils, then state legislatures, THEN Congress.
Given the difficulty of sustaining any movement, this sounds to me like a losing proposition. The problem with electing local officials is that there are a LOT more local bodies to keep an eye on. It seems like it will get diluted very quickly. Remember, people don't "stay" elected; they have to continuously run for re-election. As focus shifts to the state level, the local yokels will be left to fend for themselves. For this reason, I don't see going all the way down to the local level as practicable. Picking a viable state and focusing on it as a proving ground might be more effective; it would at least be more visible.
I'm not saying the plan you have won't work; I'm just saying that any change it creates will be a long way off. Given that, it will be difficult to keep people mobilized.
I am cooling on the overall notion of financial support for reform-oriented candidates. It didn't work last time around, even with millions of dollars in the coffers (a few hundred of which came from me). I'm not sure why (and I would be interested in a studied opinion on the reasons for its failure) but I am loath to commit myself to a method that has been shown not to work.
The Bloomberg article gives me some hope, though. It might be instructive to look at how the movements they highlight actually gained steam and try to emulate that.
[–]palsh7 1 point  
I appreciate all you do, but please consider the possibility that Mayday's only failure was and is its seeming reluctance to stick to any strategy for more than one cycle. It's one thing to "learn and adapt," but Mayday (and Lessig in particular) tends to work hard to gain acceptance for a plan, then sticks to it for about another month, until things inevitably don't immediately work, and then we get a big email or press release throwing in the towel, and therefore starting from scratch on gaining grassroots "bottom-up" support.
[–]philosophicalbeard 2 points  
[–]ImagineJesusPooping[S] 3 points  
Way too partisan. As much as I agree with many of the goals of the progressive platform, I don't think campaign finance reform should be made a partisan issue. Conservatives need this just as much as liberals, but no conservative would ever join a movement like that. That's what I liked about MaydayPAC.
By creating a progressive echo chamber, the singularly important issue of campaign finance reform gets drowned out by noise (even though literally 90% of the problems you want to fix could be fixed if we take back our elections).
[–]philosophicalbeard 2 points  
Good point. I hadn't thought of that way, thanks for the explanation.
[–]WackyXaky 2 points  
It seems that the important path forward is stateside (or even on the city/county level). If we can create state based public financing and constitutionally legal regulations, people can start to see the value of implementing it nationally. States are smaller and take fewer people and less money to change.
[–]vdau 3 points  
Useless demonstrations?? I hope you're not talking about Democracy Spring. Just you wait, man, the idea of campaign finance reform had its big break this year, it is supported now by practically all Democrats and even some Republicans. Now we've just got to make sure the right reforms are implemented.
[–]ImagineJesusPooping[S] 1 point  
Yeah, useless demonstrations. Remember Occupy Wallstreet? That was way bigger and got way more coverage than DS. The problem is that when demonstrations get big enough to cover, they get co-opted by other movements. I was front and center when MaydayPAC launched, and I would say I helped raise a few thousand dollars through Reddit alone. Now look at it... basically abandoned by Lessig and everyone else, a complete failure. Waving a sign around isn't going to do a damned thing. The fact that Democrats "support" campaign finance reform means nothing - they're just pandering to the issue of the day. They're not going to cut their own lifelines, ever.
I don't know what the way forward is, but I'm pretty sure it's not waving signs around.
Update 4/27
Response to tweet from Lisa Gilbert
There are two things I would say in response to the above tweet.

First, I do not seek a pledge from candidates about what they will do if elected. I am not against pledges but I think the country is fed up with promises and pledges by politicians. Congress refuses to face up, and I am seeking to force Congress to face up. I believe that only the American people united across the political spectrum can force Congress to face up. I seek all Congressional candidates in 2016 to help the American people force Congress to face up by vociferously demanding that the current Congress take this up for debate and action (or non-action) before November 8th, as will allow the 2016 Congressional elections to be a referendum on the current Congress facing up (or not facing up).

Second, I believe DemocracySpring needs to answer A question for DemSpring. As stated at the end of that entry,
If the foregoing question is not delved into by DemSpring, and dealt with, our issue that DemSpring wants to force "into the heart of the 2016 election narrative" is at serious risk of being just another one of numerous partisan gridlock matters that the American people despair of their broken Congress doing their job about, and, as such, disappears in the fog of the perpetual political war.
Again, I am not against pledges, but, if DemSpring does not open up its "pitch" to candidates, I think it will contribute to partisan posturing, which I believe is counterproductive to achieving meaningful progress.

[Edit: Three things] Third, pledges partake of conundrum #2 of Zephyr Teachout's conundrums. Conundrum #2 arguably led to Prof. Lessig abandoning the effort at the Congressional level, and Democracy Spring needs to consider how conundrum #2 may irretrievably debilitate its pledge approach.  As explained at Rationale, I think my approach overcomes the conundrum #2 problem.
Posted by at

No comments:

Post a Comment

Subscribe to: Post Comments (Atom)