[EL] RE; Americans Elect

[Paul Gronke]

> Vince
> 
> There is serious money behind this, but one of the criticisms of the effort is the source of the money.  Youngish hedge fund managers from Wall Street currently constitute the bulk of the financing.  They claim this is a "loan" that will be paid back via other fundraising, but right now they are constituted as a 501c(4) and do not have to report on fundraising (the board membership is listed here: http://www.americanselect.org/who-we-are).
> 
> I debated their national field director on a PBS show (archived here http://www.opb.org/thinkoutloud/shows/americans-elect/) since they are circulating petitions in Oregon, and it's pretty clear that they are still facing some growth pains.  For example, when asked about their donors, the field director claimed that while they encourage their donors to reveal their names, as a 501c(4), they  cannot legally release those names.  The readership here can correct me if I'm wrong, but I told him I thought that was not correct--they are not legally obligated to release the names, but certainly could do so if they wanted to.  The whole point of a c(4) designation, I thought, was to remove the disclosure requirement.
> 
> They are doing some very interesting things.  They want to have a months long national "convention" that could play the role of a deliberative forum such as James Fishkin has sponsored in past election years.  They claim that they will limit participation in the forum to validated registered voters--though it is not clear how they will validate registration status and how (or if) participant names will be permanently associated with "handles" in the "convention."
> 
> The biggest concerns I have expressed are two.  First, if they are really concerned with partisan extremism, then focusing on the presidency is simply the wrong target.  It's a pity to see substantial resources directed at the wrong kind of reform.  They should, in my opinion, look to state legislatures and the U.S. Congress if they are concerned with gridlock and lack of competition.
> 
> Relatedly, at the presidential level, they are quite obviously going to act as a spoiler, and given the political leanings of their "membership", they can only act as a spoiler on the Democratic side.   You can figure out the political leanings by registering and filling out the issues poll--after each survey item, they give you the opinions of the current membership.  Of the responses a week ago, this sure looks like a Obama-esque agenda:
> 
> 	72% think it is good or very good to continue the payroll tax reduction
> 
> 	80% think it is a good idea to use fed funds to pay teacher salaries, and 82% fed funds to pay for music and art programs
> 	
> 	40% recycle always and another 47% often
> 
> 	70% support a health insurance mandate and 92% either support either very strong (68%) or weak (24%) federal regulation of private insurance companies.
> 
> 	60% oppose the death penalty
> 
> 	60% want to withdraw all troops from all foreign countries
> 
> 	60% support more and 9% the same level of federal spending for an economic stimulus
> 
> 	63% support a federally standardized abortion law
> 
> ---
> Paul Gronke                Ph:  503-517-7393
> 			               Fax: 734-661-0801
> 
> Professor, Reed College
> Director, Early Voting Information Center 3203 SE Woodstock Blvd.
> Portland OR 97202
> 
> EVIC: http://earlyvoting.net
> 

-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://webshare.law.ucla.edu/Listservs/law-election/attachments/20111013/973eb76d/attachment.html>