WHERE THEY LIVE AND WHO GAVE

Last week the special election in Georgia’s 6th Congressional District caused me to make changes to Voting Alert Beacons #3 and #5, Listen/Ignore and The Money respectively.  WHY?  

First, some facts.  The final round election was held on June 20th after a primary which included a slew of Democrats and Republicans.  However, in the April 18th primary, no one garnered more than 50% of the vote.  So, the run-off election ensued between Democrat Jon Ossoff and Republican Karen Handel.  It was a closely watched campaign with heated debate on the issues of our day.  However, two facts caught my eye.  Jon Ossoff doesn’t live in the district he proposed to represent, and more money was spent in this race then ever before in any Congressional District race.  There are several numbers floating around, but a common figure seems to be $50 million plus.  WHEW!  The alarming factor is that the lion’s share of this money came from outside the 6th District.  Many PACS and special interests contributed, along with vast sums from both New York and California.

This has happened before.  Sometimes people who don’t live in the State, Congressional districts, or state legislative districts run for office in those same areas, and are supported by money from the “outside.”  When this happens, the local elections are influenced by national special interests and power brokers.  So, specifically we’re left to conclude, and it’s not a reach to see, there is little difference between what happened in the 6th District and the apparent Russian interference in the 2016 national elections.  WHY WOULD ONE BE ACCEPTABLE AND THE OTHER NOT?

Here’s what I changed:

Beacon #3 Listen / Ignore:  Regardless of local laws, IGNORE candidates who don't live in your State, Congressional district, or state legislative district.

Beacon #5 The Money:  DON'T vote for candidates who accept money from outside your State, Congressional district, or state legislative district.

Simple and logical, right?  The power of each vote we cast and all of them together is immense.  Don't forget!

. . .  remember that America’s best days aren’t behind her.   America’s best days are ahead of her.  They always have been and always will be.

Dave

Copyright © 2017 by David William Wygant. All rights reserved.  

LOOKING FOR AUTHENTIC PUBLIC SERVANTS!

I started to write another article about polls, but my thoughts drifted into many interweaving and related areas.  Finally, I ended up with notes comparing the thinking, activities and actions of politicians and public servants.  My list(s) are below.

I’m glad I took this detour given that the first Presidential debates are tomorrow.  In addition to using your Listen/Ignore table from yesterday’s post to keep score, ask yourself how each candidate rates according to the points below.  Are they a politician or a public servant?  By my count, there are only three candidates who can fairly call themselves public servants.  See what you think.

Politician

• Pursues and accepts money from special interests, organizations and wealthy individuals in ever increasing amounts.
• They like polls, and can make a negative poll look good, and use a positive poll for negative purposes.  Their focus on polls is strategic in terms of helping them divide voters into groups as they look for our votes.  The terms “divide and conquer” come to mind.
• Use the influence that comes with their office and responsibilities for the benefit of special interests.
• They view their elective office as a career with some taking the word incumbent to the next step of entitlement.
• They are generally willing to sacrifice national progress to further their own interests, or that of the party.
• Views “perks” of their office as required and deserved.  Always in the ready to create more.

Public Servant

• Accepts campaign funding only from individual voters.
• Ignores polls and talks directly with voters.  Their leadership and ideas are based on direct contact with their constituents and their imaginations.
• Voters are the only special interest they serve, and use the influence of their office for.
• They look forward to returning to the careers they left behind to serve in elective office.
• Seek win-win, and compromise, in the interest of America and progress.
• Pursue consensus in word and deed.
• Happy with expense reimbursement and personal benefits during the time they serve, but they leave those behind when they return to their lives back home.
• They have a retirement program back home, and don’t expect one as a result of their relatively brief public service.

DISCLAIMER:  The lists above are mine, but I believe I could objectively find  numerous examples of each point.  Although, it would be more difficult for the public servant points.  Nonetheless, as a responsible voter, please form your own opinion(s), and then vote in secret.

Elective office is a public service opportunity, not a career!

. . .  remember that America’s best days aren’t behind her.   America’s best days are ahead of her.  They always have been and always will be.

Dave

Copyright © 2015 by David William Wygant. All rights reserved.  

Cantor vs. Blat and Voting Alert Beacon #5

Did you see it?  Have you heard?  Today, the earth is still trembling after David Blat beat Eric Cantor in the Virginia Republican primary for Congress.  

The newspapers and the news websites are all declaring the magnitude of the earthquake and guessing about the dramatic changes this one election may predict about the elections next fall.  It was predicted in the morning and by afternoon, Mr. Cantor had resigned his position as Majority Leader in the House.  Now the guessing games by the political professionals is focused on whether John Boehner can survive as Speaker of the House.  

In the last election, Mr. Cantor won by a wide margin.  Actually, almost the same margin as Mr. Blat defeated him by last night.  Keep in mind that Mr Canter had served since 2000.  The reasons for Mr. Blat’s victory have been declared.  Mr. Canter wasn’t returning to his district often enough.  He was out fundraising across the country for other Republican candidates.  In the past few years, his focus had shifted from his district to his own position of power.  It is said that he coveted the Speaker spot.

Now enter Voting Alert Beacon #5 about Money.  This Beacon recommends that voters should vote for the candidate that doesn’t take special interest money, and only takes smaller donations from individual citizens.  So, here are the numbers.  Mr. Canter spent over $5 million dollars in the election (by all accounts largely negative).  Mr. Blat spent only a little more than $120,000.  Yup, you read that correctly, and I’ve verified these numbers with the Federal Election Committee records.  What do you think?  I’m guessing that Mr. Blat isn’t in any special interest pocket, and he modestly appreciates every vote from ordinary citizens he received.  

OK, so we know it works.  Vote for the NON-incumbent and for the candidate who raises and spends the smallest amount of money.  Whatever political party is irrelevant.  At this point the parties just don’t matter.  In my next post, I’ve give you some numbers that demonstrate why that is true.

Spread the word!  Tell your friends about the Voting Alert Beacons!

. . .  remember that America’s best days aren’t behind her.   America’s best days are ahead of her.  They always have been and always will be.

Dave

Copyright © 2014 by David William Wygant. All rights reserved. 

A New Vision - Bring Them Home

What if Representatives and Senators moved their principal office from Washington DC back to their districts and states?  With the transportation and communications systems available in this modern era, there are many reasons why it would work and even more reasons why it would be a good step for better public service and good government.  Keep in mind that very profitable companies now work daily on a global distributive model.

What does some of the fine print look like?  What does this mean?  In terms of the week, this might mean our public servants are in Washington DC on Monday and Tuesday.  For the remainder of the week, they are close to their constituents.  In terms of staying in touch, keep in mind that individuals and groups of people are now routinely connected with each other no matter where they are on the face of the planet. 

What else might change? 

The most important high level change is that they are closer to who they represent.  It is easier for them to remember where they come from.  Their “memberships” in the political parties will be correctly balanced by proximity to their constituents.  Their representation of us becomes stronger then their allegiance to issues and parties. 

The Representatives and Senators are also closer to their state government counterparts.  When they properly work together, they form an important counter weight to the accumulation of power in the federal government.  State’s rights is reinforced.

Special interests would have a more difficult time asserting influence.  The special interests will find it difficult and costly establishing a lobby office in each state.  Now they just set up one office in Washington DC.

Local media becomes more important and pronounced.  National media will have some of the same problems as special interests.

There will be important practical advantages too.  It will be less expensive to set up state or district office versus a very expensive and egocentric DC office.  The perks of office will likely be more normal if the Representative and Senators are close to their constituents.

Goal:  Work toward a time when great ideas will cast a show on the accumulation of great power.

Spread the word!  Tell your friends about the Voting Alert Beacons!

. . .  remember that America’s best days aren’t behind her.   America’s best days are ahead of her.  They always have been and always will be.

Dave

Copyright © 2014 by David William Wygant. All rights reserved. 

IS AMERICAN DEMOCRACY DEAD?

On the CNN news website today, Julian Zelizer posted an opinion article that raised very serious questions about the health of democracy in America because of the influence of money.   It’s hard not to feel a little apprehension after reading it.

In the first paragraph, Mr. Zelizer identifies the problem and underlines its seriousness.  Throughout the article he recalls the history of how we “got here.”  He states what all of us know to be true based on what we see happening around us.

Read his article for yourself here.

It is the season to act!

We voters can do something about this problem.  We can fix it one vote at a time (THINK THE POWER OF ONE).  Voting Alert Beacon #5 drives a stake through the heart of special interests money, and their effect on our democracy.

It’s very simple!  First we all need to vote.  Second, if we follow the basic steps that the Voting Alert Beacons lay out in making our selections in the voting booth, we can shut down the special interest money like a water faucet that doesn’t leak.

Some would say that the Beacons are too simple.  I would say that is the very reason why they will work cleanly and effectively with dramatic effects.

Spread the word!  Tell your friends about the Voting Alert Beacons!

. . .  remember that America’s best days aren’t behind her.   America’s best days are ahead of her.  They always have been and always will be.

Dave

Copyright © 2014 by David William Wygant. All rights reserved. 

LIMITS ON DONATIONS REMOVED

This week the US Supreme Court removed the limits on campaign donations by wealthy individuals while leaving the individual candidate limit intact.  The ruling means a wealthy liberal or conservative donor can give as much money as desired to federal election candidates across the country, as long as no single candidate receives more than the $5,200 cap.  Most commentary agrees that this opens the flood gates to large increases in private election donations.  As strange as my thinking seemed to even me, it finally made sense to me that the court decision is a good one.  We don’t need laws that limit any of our constitutional rights, we need to powerfully use our right to vote to elect public servants that are honest and willing to consistently “just say no” to money and special interests.

For years, politicians (all kinds) have sponsored and passed laws in an attempt to limit the amount of money spent in our election campaigns.  However, the amount of money spent in elections has never trended down, but has continued to rise.  Over time most of these laws, or parts of them, have been ruled unconstitutional as against the right to free speech. 

Neither the legislative branch or the judicial branch have been able to find an effective limiting process.  Then, as demonstrated by the 2012 Presidential election where the combined dollars spend by both major candidates was almost $2 Billion, the executive branch doesn’t have the tools or inclination to solve this money problem either.  

Now, we voters need to take our turn.  As voters we simple need to apply the steps in Voting Alert Beacon #5:  The Money.  It may take several elections, but if we follow the steps, we can begin to take the money out of the system so that honesty and public service can rush back in.

NOTE:  Moral laws don’t make moral men and women, but moral and honest men and women can make moral laws.  With the power of our individual vote, we can elect the honest men and women that we desperately need.

Spread the word!  Tell your friends about the Voting Alert Beacons!

. . .  remember that America’s best days aren’t behind her.   America’s best days are ahead of her.  They always have been and always will be.

Dave

Copyright © 2014 by David William Wygant. All rights reserved. 

Today I checked several of the news websites to see what issues and important things are being reported on in the Presidential election campaign.


Here’s the list::

• Proposed “Buffett Rule” for taxing the wealthy
• Various tax code changes
• Possibly eliminating the Department of Education and Department of Housing and Urban Development
• The move into high gear of campaign fundraising
• The fight over the female vote
• Searching for a Vice-President candidate by both parties
• The harsh attacks that Mr. Romney and President Obama are already trading
• The Romney dog Seamus riding on the car rooftop 

This list contains items that range from important to childlike to ridiculous.  

Nonetheless, it is still an important list because of what it doesn’t contain.  We have no idea what the “vision(s)” are of which the items are a part and should support.  Each item should fit into a “Vision of Success” for America, or it shouldn’t be a topic of discussion.  Without the vision or big picture, it is impossible to know how to feel about any of the issues, and then which candidate to vote for.

Ok, what is a “vision of success” and why do we need it?

Let’s start with an example.  One of the most often cited and thought about visions is President John Kennedy’s vision and challenge to America that it would land a person on the moon and return them safely by the end of the decade.

Here’s his language.

“We choose to go to the Moon in this decade and do the other things, not because they are easy - but because they are hard! Because that challenge is one we are willing to accept, one we are unwilling to postpone and one we intend to win!”  …  John F. Kennedy - Rice University speech on September 12, 1962

So, that’s an example of a vision of success.  It reached for a high achievement and inspired a nation.  As a result, the vision was fulfilled and America landed a man on the moon in 1969.  How did that happen?

In concept, it is fairly simple.  The vision transformed America by providing a picture of what could be.  It was a catalyst that focused the attention of everyone on the goal of landing on the moon.  With that focus it also brought alignment across many organizations and individuals.  With the alignment great amounts of energy was unleashed toward attainment of the goal.  Everyone “pulled the rope” the same direction.  The historical ability of America to rise to meet great challenges was called upon.  In the end, all of the elements were united by the clear and compelling vision of the moon land.  A vision which has played over countless times in the image of Neil Armstrong descending the ladder and first stepping on the surface.

Call to Candidates

We want to know what your vision of success is for America and why you think it’s the right vision.  We aren’t interested in your view of the other candidate’s vision.  That’s our job.  Please put all of your energy into developing your vision of success and then tell us what it is.  

Voting Alert Beacons Vision

I’ll go first.  In my next post, I’ll offer a vision of success for the Voting Alert Beacons.

In future posts, 

1. I will discuss a range of things to consider as each of us thinks about who to vote for next November.  I’ll do my best to give comment and examples on how to apply the Voting Alert Beacons to the back and forth discussion between the candidates.  
2. I look forward to offering a few new ideas and items like a practical definition of what exactly a “vision of success” is, and how to compare several visions for their possibilities.  
3. Let’s talk about leadership in terms of vision, passion, and values. 
4.  I will also offer a job description for the Presidency of the United States so that we have at least a basic standard for knowing if a candidate is qualified, along with their strong points and weak points.

Throughout, I hope to do my best to get the candidates to talk to us as voters instead of arguing with each other.  It is my hope that the candidates will respond and focus less on defeating each other, and more on giving us reasons to vote for them.

. . .  remember that America’s best days aren’t behind her.   America’s best days are ahead of her.  They always have been and always will be.

Dave

Copyright © 2012 by David William Wygant. All rights reserved.

Voting Alert Beacon #5 is about eliminating the negative effects of campaign money.  What has not been possible through any other means, voters can do with their vote. 

Over the years Congress has attempted many times to control the collection and spending of campaign funds.  In each case, the laws have generally been found unconstitutional by The U.S. Supreme Court under the FREE SPEECH provisions of the Constitution.  With a little information, and our votes, we citizens can easily straighten this out.

First, we need the information.  The information below is gathered from the Federal Election Commission website.  There is a link on the right side of this blog.  Using the website, it is very easy to find campaign funding information on any candidate.  All voters need to become familiar with where to find, and how to use, this information for both the federal and state candidates.

To get you started, I’ve collected information for each of the Republican candidates now running in the primary season, plus the information for President Barak Obama.  See the table below.

	Gingrich	Paul	Romney	Santorum	Obama
Individual	$20,647,244	$33,128,117	$73,144,957	$15,547,669	$118,793,406
All other (PACs, etc.)	$71,295	$2,670	$516,351	$54,224
$200 and Under	$11,747,790	$20,844,059	$9,253,545	$9,175,297	$94,434,232
$200.01 - $499	$1,897,535	$5,022,494	$2,321,751	$1,470,680	$11,993,951
$500 - $999	$1,806,585	$2,748,744	$4,277,312	$1,317,898	$11,970,167
$1000 and Over	$5,282,101	$4,645,477	$58,370,414	$3,599,996	$58,115,675
Grand Total	$41,452,550	$66,391,561	$147,884,330	$31,165,764	$295,307,431

[Source:  Federal Election Commission, March 29, 2012 at 2:30pm]

What do the colors mean?  Think of the color scheme like a set of traffic lights at an intersection.  Green is good, yellow is caution, and red is stop.  If all of the candidate contributions were coming only from “green” sources or individuals in small amounts, huge distortions in our election system would disappear and we’d be back to discussing only the issues.  On the other hand, when a candidate receives most of their contributions from “red” sources or entities like large amount donors, PACs, associations and unions, then the minimum number of voters or entities like PACs, associations, and unions use a maximum amount of money to distort the election.

OK, this will take a some time to think about, in the meantime here are a few simple rules to follow when you vote.

1. After looking at their positions on the issues, vote for candidates with small donations from a large number of individuals.
2. Never vote for a candidate who receive over 25% of their donations from the combination of large amount donors (over $499), and non-human entities likes PACs, associations, and unions.

A THOUGHT TO REMEMBER:  While large amounts of money can overwhelm a fair discussion on the issues, if the money is given by individuals it is visible to all of us, and in that way fair.  On the other hand, when very large amount donor individuals, PACs, associations, and unions give money, the effect of that money isn’t felt until after the election.  The real damage quietly occurs when a large donor or non-human entity stops by an elected official’s office to remind them of a prior donation and twist their arm.

In my next post:  I will apply as many of the Voting Alert Beacons as possible to what we’re reading and hearing in the news.

In the meantime, remember that America’s best days aren’t behind her.   America’s best days are ahead of her.  They always have been and always will be.

Dave

Copyright © 2012 by David William Wygant. All rights reserved.