Posted on 08/05/2007 7:51:43 PM PDT by Jim Robinson
I wholeheartedly endorse both of the goals.
I lauded the goals in my initial post and I offered constructive criticism. Yet you confused that with whether I was behind the effort and challenged my motives---now where did that come from? No goal-oriented, professional activist organization would do such a thing to those from whom it was soliciting donations.
While the GOAL IS WORTHY, the organization is not ready for prime-time. A "few extra dollars in honor of" is still a donation and, if you seek donations, you must be properly constituted and organized in order to be successful.
Do you know what are, and how to solicit and use, "in-kind" donations? If not, you're not ready. If so, then you wasted 12 grand when you should have used in-kind donations.
Having organized and directed several such non-profits, I'll be glad to help, if it is a well-run, properly constituted organization you wish to have.
I truly don’t think that repealing the 17th Amendment will accomplish much of anything, compared to multiple, and probably ordinary (as opposed to constitutional) changes.
For example, one of the most effective ways of getting your agenda heard in political functions such as parliaments and conventions, is to be a “marginal” organization with a focused agenda, between two major competitors.
In the US right now, there is only one such group that has the fixated attention and patronization of both republicans and democrats: “Hispanics”, or more properly Mexican Americans. Specifically American citizens of Mexican ancestry.
And while they are an ethnic bloc, they represent the “marginal” condition that any “marginal” political party or organization could achieve, except they have no great focus, no special agenda, as such. They may end up voting in either direction.
If these people ever found a leader with limited and concise demands, both republicans and democrats would jump through the hoop to appease him and them. That is because by being in the middle, they would carry far more weight than other groups who have already chosen sides.
Now in the case of reducing the size of the federal government, the path to success would be to create an organization, if not a political party, with enough clout to turn an election towards either party. And it would have to be clear, and be able to deliver the votes, to *whoever* gave them what they wanted.
Under no circumstances could they adopt other positions favored by one side or the other, which would take tremendous discipline. Their sole effort, individually and collectively, would have to be to reducing the size and scope of the federal government.
Importantly, this would *not* have to take place at the federal level, at first. For that, the NRA is a good example. They intervene in tight political contests at the State level, and will support whichever candidate that supports gun right more. This skillful technique has busted up rigid blocs in both the democrats and republicans, by creating both “pro-gun” democrats and driving from power “anti-gun” republicans.
So say this new organization has the single platform of reducing the size of the federal government. It should go to the State where it is the strongest, and as an organization wheel and deal with both democrats and republicans at the State level. Make them both the same offer: support slashing the size of the federal government, and we will get you elected.
But, you might ask, these are State offices. What good are they in influencing the national parties and federal government? The answer to that is “building bi-partisan momentum”.
On almost every election day in the US, there are races that are tight all over the country. The more politicians you can get “across the finish line” in more places will be elected officials who will owe you a big favor. They will see your organization as “the” one that got them elected.
And republicans and democrats will then start vying for your support. And such power does trickle up.
With such a tactic, pretty soon the national parties would start looking at how they could “bring you into the fold”, as a permanent supporter of their party. But this has to be refused, though it is a terribly attractive idea. They will offer real power if you align with them, but if you do, then you will win a small battle and lose the war.
As you well know, I have been on this bandwagon for years. In fact 1913 was a VERY bad year for our republic all around. Both the 16th and 17th amendments desperately need repealing if we are ever again to be a truly free people.
And I don’t believe yours would accomplish much of anything, but it you go ahead and start such an organization, I certainly will support it.
“As you well know, I have been on this bandwagon for years. In fact 1913 was a VERY bad year for our republic all around.”
As one of my people noted, “All we really have to do to get everything straightened out is delete 1913.”
“I lauded the goals in my initial post and I offered constructive criticism. Yet you confused that with whether I was behind the effort and challenged my motives-—now where did that come from? No goal-oriented, professional activist organization would do such a thing to those from whom it was soliciting donations.”
If I misunderstood your motives, I sincerely apologize. Please understand, I get tons of emails with suggestions from people who “Know exactly how to get it done,” and, so far, all of them have been colossal flops. The bottom line is this. I have selected and decided on a way to do it, which has evolved from some false starts. If someone can show me how to improve on what I’m doing, I’m wide open to suggestion.
“While the GOAL IS WORTHY, the organization is not ready for prime-time. A “few extra dollars in honor of” is still a donation and, if you seek donations, you must be properly constituted and organized in order to be successful.”
I hear what you’re saying, and recognize that you are sincere. But I think you will have to admit that when someone come on with a “You’re doing everything wrong” approach without providing any detail as to what is the “correct” way to do it, it is subject to some skepticism's. I’ve given a couple of people a shot at it, but all they accomplished was to slow me down for a while.
“Do you know what are, and how to solicit and use, “in-kind” donations? If not, you’re not ready. If so, then you wasted 12 grand when you should have used in-kind donations.”
Your term “in kind” donations is a bit ambiguous. It can and does have multiple meanings. How are you using it. Please be specific.
“Having organized and directed several such non-profits, I’ll be glad to help, if it is a well-run, properly constituted organization you wish to have.”
As I said, I’m open to suggestion.
Yep! Now all we need is to figure out how to undo 1913.
Well said!
Glad to know there are others who understand that the 17th did far more that change the way senators are selected. It changed the fundamental design of the republic for the reasons you have eluded to.
B T T T
Ok, that tells me you've not done this before, at least not on a professional level, and that is helpful information. In Kind donations are donations of time, material, facilities, heat, light, water (general utilities)and services made by those in a position to extend these. Often, they are made by local govt. offices (e.g., county commissioners), but are by no means restricted to that. For example, an attorney who is sympathetic to your cause can make an in-kind donation of services to set up your non-profit organization and deduct this from their income taxes. A person with an established office staff can do the same for secretarial, etc., assistance. A landlord can do this for a building or office space. All has to be well-documented, etc. A church can do this as well.
“With the illegals voting, we are simply out numbered....”
Which is why IMHO, the Senate is risking its entire reputation on illegal immigration legislation. Business, and their Senate lackeys, smell this coming a mile away.When the senate once again, belongs to the people, we’ll have our country back for our kids and grandkids. It is doable...
“By professionalism: Get non-profit status so that contributions are deductible”
When I first started I went in that direction, but on the advice a very knowledgeable and experienced person I canceled it. If were a Chapter (C)3 it would make fund raising much easier, I know that. However, it would open me up for some really nasty opposition tactics. Even though it isn’t, someone along the line would go to court contending that I am engaging in forbidden political activity. I would eventually win, but it would tie things up for several years as it wound it’s way through court. Therefore, I have to settle for simple “Not For Profit.”
“Stick to one issue for fund raising—if you want two issues, then form two groups-—Accountability is a must if you expect significant donations.”
Again, you are the first and only person who has ever seen it as two rather than one. I really don’t think that’s a problem. Furthermore, I am not going for “Significant” contributions. Since it is a strictly non partisan effort, I have to be quite careful as to who contributes, since I cannot take the risk of being identified with any existing group. I have had offers of substantial support from various organizations and an offer to join one, but their political positions would be a poison pill with the legislatures. Therefore, I am going after a whole lot of small contributions.
“Finally, the web site has only a two choice (donate, don’t donate), forced-choice alternative. There should be the ability to volunteer for those who are not ready to donate money.”
Good suggestion, but at this point I have no use for volunteers. When it comes time to put pressure on Congress, I have thousands of people who will do that.
I wholeheartedly endorse both of the goals. good.
Now, I’ll address a couple of points you made in a later post. As for “in kind” contributions, I thought that’s what you meant. FYI I have free office, Free Telephone, Free DSL etc. If I said I have spent $12,000, that’s in error. I think I said, it has “cost” me $12,000. That’s the amount of income I have had to give up so far to do this. I’m a contract financial analyst for a major, national consulting firm. I still take jobs when they tell me they really, really want me to do a particular one, but I have turned down $12,000 worth of work.
You can hang on to your symbolic vote, or you can take positive steps to help change it. Millions of men have put themselves in harm's way to preserve our freedom with their blood staining the world's battlefields. We have not served them well by allowing this to happen.
Bears constant drumbeat repeating.
~ joanie
Allegiance and Duty Betrayed
Wow this blows my mind. There’s some heavy stuff being brought up here.On the one hand do we let government “State Legislatures” choose more government “US Senate” or do we decide for ourselves who represents us? It’s not an easy question to get a handle on !!!
I look at like this, would the legislature of New York have sent Hillary to DC ?
Clearly worth supporting.
If I had money to spare I'd send it. As it is I have only well wishes and a "good luck" to send your way.
The current make up of Democraps on a state level is that they control 30 State House of Representatives and 26 State Senates, with a coinflip for State Senates for Oklahoma and Tennessee tied at 24-24 and 16-16 respectively. To think that this idea would get my voice heard is rediculous!
bump
That can and probably will change in the 2008 elections. If not then, there’s 2010 and a Sent-or is there for six years.
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.