7 ms·

Founder/treasurer here. This is my first sharing of the project. Really interested in feedback and happy to answer questions <3

whycombagator 6y ago
Maybe I just missed it on your site. I see your mission, but how are you going to go about achieving it?
- r3trohack3r 6y ago
  This is really good feedback. I tried to sum it up with "vote them out" but I don't think that really captures what this PAC positions us to do. We are a 527, which allows us to attempt to directly influence elections. 501(c)(3)s can't do this. My goal is to use the donations we gather to fund analysis of the voting records, legislation, comments on the floor, etc. of our representatives, and then actively campaign against them when they are up for re-election. We will prioritize based on election cycles (who is coming up for re-election), how much they've undermined these three measurements, and how close they are to the committees that are supposed to oversee these domains. As a 527, we aren't stuck lobbying and paying lawyers to try to go through the court system. The key is that, as a 527, we can actively campaign against these representatives in their districts. We can directly fund political ads that put their record on mass surveillance _directly in front of their voters_. By collecting email addresses, we can send out our analysis ahead of election day. By collecting donations, we can run ads in their district.
  - whycombagator 6y ago
    You may want to add stuff like this to the site, if you expect donations. Being open and transparent about donations and where the money is going etc would also go a long way. So would open sourcing all the analysis etc.
    - r3trohack3r 6y ago
      Thanks <3 Agreed. We are open source from day one: https://github.com/every-two-years https://github.com/every-two-years. The only piece that isn't open source at the moment is our donations page and I'm working to fix that. We don't have any formal analysis yet, being a bit more transparent about why everyone has an X right now (it's the default) might help too?
      - whycombagator 6y ago
        > being a bit more transparent about why everyone has an X right now (it's the default) might help too? I think that would be helpful. Also maybe add a sort functionality for the data. Just a simple asc/desc. Scrolling the entire House to see if there was anything but a red X was tiring :) Edit: adding a link to Github on the site would be a good idea too IMO.
        r3trohack3r 6y ago
        Thank you for engaging so much <3 I've dropped the Senate and House pages from our website for now until we have concrete data. Once we start building out our analysis, it will be transparent and open. I've added a link to our GitHub organization in the footer of the website under "Open By Design".
    - r3trohack3r 6y ago
      I added it to the faq page, thank you for the feedback! https://everytwoyears.org/faq.html https://everytwoyears.org/faq.html
  - schoen 6y ago
    I don't know much about this area, but I understand that some single-issue PACs have had to actively think about how to convince campaigns that they are genuinely single-issue and non-partisan (for example because the PAC's staff or donors might primarily support or be perceived as supporting one party—and because many PACs do exclusively support one party even they don't advertise themselves that way!). It might be helpful to talk to other single-issue PACs, consultants, or lobbyists to about how they manage this issue. This is important because single-issue PACs don't want campaigns or legislative offices to dismiss them as someone who would never want to support them or work with them, or prospective donors who otherwise identify with a party to fear that their donations will only harm that party. > We will prioritize based on election cycles (who is coming up for re-election), how much they've undermined these three measurements, and how close they are to the committees that are supposed to oversee these domains. In this polarized and super-partisan world, people will instinctively find it hard to believe that you really did that whenever you end up on "the other side" from them in a race they care about. So again, I think you'll end up having to consider what you'll tell those people about why your strategy is the best strategy for your issue and how they can be confident that you really followed it.
    - r3trohack3r 6y ago
      This is super insightful. I wish I could give you more of a response, but your feedback really cuts to the core of something I need to reflect on and I don't have much to add beyond that. Thank you for calling it out <3
  - joe-collins 6y ago
    I am jaded when it comes to promises of change. If you want to reach others like myself, that explanation of what you're doing needs to be up front. What are you doing that's new? Will you show your work, share those analyses? Rattling off "501(c)(3)" and "527" is technical detail. Keep it somewhere, but not the first thing on the "friendly" pages. I need to know that you'll spend my money on campaigning, not the laws that allow it.
    - r3trohack3r 6y ago
      I agree, it's technical jargon.. Do you have a better way of wording it? The core is that a 501(c)(3) legally _can not_ spend money on campaigning without losing their non-profit status. They are stuck in courts, lobbying, and talking about their causes. A 527 is allowed to actively campaign. If you donate to a 501(c)(3) you're money can't be used to campaign. If we want to vote them out, we need to do it on the same ground they do, a 527 puts us on equal footing.
      - joe-collins 6y ago
        Just state that there is a difference, and leave the details to be dug up later. "The laws governing non-profits mean that many popular organizations cannot campaign. However, we can, and we intend to call out yada yada yada."
    - r3trohack3r 6y ago
      I took another pass at the copy on the website. Does it help? (you may need a force refresh)
  - rbecker 6y ago
    > We will prioritize based on election cycles (who is coming up for re-election), how much they've undermined these three measurements, and how close they are to the committees that are supposed to oversee these domains. If I may offer a suggestion, optimize also on how close an election is expected to be. It may take a lot of ads to swing some elections, but only few to swing others, and you want the most bang for your buck.
qchris 6y ago
Are you considering any options to allow donations to choose certain pools? For example, I think I'd be really interested in donating towards maintaining a thorough breakdown of politicians' records on mass surveillance or their stance on options like ranked-choice voting, but not as stoked about directly having my donation used for boots-on-the-ground campaigning in a district across the country. An option to ask for a donation to support different initiatives might be attractive, even if there were only three or four options.
- r3trohack3r 6y ago
  We hadn't considered this, but certainly will. At this stage (we just launched today) I don't think we have the resources to effectively manage donations that way. As we grow, I'll fit this into the roadmap. Also, if you feel passionately about a specific area and want to provide help/feedback, donations of time are always welcome and we are always here to listen.
specialist 6y ago
Okay. Question: What laws, policies have you passed? Who's on your board of directors? Who's advising? What's your fund raising experience? Suggestions: #1: Focus on one issue. Or create one org per issue. You can't assume allies will support your entire platform, so remove deal breakers. #2: Pace yourself for a marathon. For example, a friend of mine worked EIGHTEEN years to get the first statewide family leave act law passed. Had to build the coalition one vote at a time. #3: What are you for? Where's your model legislation? Be specific. Offense beats defense, have an affirmative agenda, etc. #4: Start locally. It's easier to move the needle, one jurisdiction at a time. #5: Why not partner with existing orgs, create a local chapter? Is there something wrong with the current public financing advocates? The people fighting for RCV? Bonus #6: Pick a strategy for privacy. Like extend property rights to personal data. Like new accounting rules to make data aggregation a financial liability. Something, anything that people can wrap their heads around.
- r3trohack3r 6y ago
  This is super valid, and something I spend a lot of time thinking about. The task ahead is monumental, but these are sub-goals. This spawned from an observation that our representative democracy isn't representative. We worked backwards from what caused that. The mission is cultivated from identifying and attempting to disrupt the viscous cycle of power imbalance. The strongest branch of the U.S. government is supposed to be the voters, not the few but the many, we aim to make that happen. I don't think any of these three points can succeed without the other two. Mass surveillance, if you click through, isn't about mass surveillance. It's about a government not being held accountable to it's own laws, which are meant to be governed by civilian oversight. Our government must follow it's own laws, it must pass laws that are foremost in line with our founding documents and then inline with their constituent's desires. The mechanism for civilian oversight is broken. While reading the ACLU FOIA requests and court documents, it was clear to me that the government wasn't playing by the rules. When you read the reasons the government kept these programs secret on write-ups from leaked documents, it was for fear of being subject to civilian oversight. This isn't how our government was designed to operate.
  - 6y ago
jyz 6y ago
Why pick 527 vs 501(c)(4)? Specifically asking about your thoughts on the disclosure requirements w/ 527
- r3trohack3r 6y ago
  This is an area I know enough to be dangerous in, so would love to learn more if anyone has resources. From my understanding a 501(c)(4) is a social welfare organization that can engage in political activity as long as it isn't its primary purpose. I didn't want to risk us breaking that restriction. The IRS pages, FEC pages, and wikipedia is where I spent most of my time studying these orgs: https://www.irs.gov/charities-non-profits/other-non-profits/social-welfare-organizations https://www.irs.gov/charities-non-profits/other-non-profits/...

whycombagator 6y ago

Maybe I just missed it on your site. I see your mission, but how are you going to go about achieving it?

r3trohack3r 6y ago
This is really good feedback. I tried to sum it up with "vote them out" but I don't think that really captures what this PAC positions us to do. We are a 527, which allows us to attempt to directly influence elections. 501(c)(3)s can't do this. My goal is to use the donations we gather to fund analysis of the voting records, legislation, comments on the floor, etc. of our representatives, and then actively campaign against them when they are up for re-election. We will prioritize based on election cycles (who is coming up for re-election), how much they've undermined these three measurements, and how close they are to the committees that are supposed to oversee these domains. As a 527, we aren't stuck lobbying and paying lawyers to try to go through the court system. The key is that, as a 527, we can actively campaign against these representatives in their districts. We can directly fund political ads that put their record on mass surveillance _directly in front of their voters_. By collecting email addresses, we can send out our analysis ahead of election day. By collecting donations, we can run ads in their district.
- whycombagator 6y ago
  You may want to add stuff like this to the site, if you expect donations. Being open and transparent about donations and where the money is going etc would also go a long way. So would open sourcing all the analysis etc.
  - r3trohack3r 6y ago
    Thanks <3 Agreed. We are open source from day one: https://github.com/every-two-years https://github.com/every-two-years. The only piece that isn't open source at the moment is our donations page and I'm working to fix that. We don't have any formal analysis yet, being a bit more transparent about why everyone has an X right now (it's the default) might help too?
    - whycombagator 6y ago
      > being a bit more transparent about why everyone has an X right now (it's the default) might help too? I think that would be helpful. Also maybe add a sort functionality for the data. Just a simple asc/desc. Scrolling the entire House to see if there was anything but a red X was tiring :) Edit: adding a link to Github on the site would be a good idea too IMO.
      - r3trohack3r 6y ago
        Thank you for engaging so much <3 I've dropped the Senate and House pages from our website for now until we have concrete data. Once we start building out our analysis, it will be transparent and open. I've added a link to our GitHub organization in the footer of the website under "Open By Design".
  - r3trohack3r 6y ago
    I added it to the faq page, thank you for the feedback! https://everytwoyears.org/faq.html https://everytwoyears.org/faq.html
- schoen 6y ago
  I don't know much about this area, but I understand that some single-issue PACs have had to actively think about how to convince campaigns that they are genuinely single-issue and non-partisan (for example because the PAC's staff or donors might primarily support or be perceived as supporting one party—and because many PACs do exclusively support one party even they don't advertise themselves that way!). It might be helpful to talk to other single-issue PACs, consultants, or lobbyists to about how they manage this issue. This is important because single-issue PACs don't want campaigns or legislative offices to dismiss them as someone who would never want to support them or work with them, or prospective donors who otherwise identify with a party to fear that their donations will only harm that party. > We will prioritize based on election cycles (who is coming up for re-election), how much they've undermined these three measurements, and how close they are to the committees that are supposed to oversee these domains. In this polarized and super-partisan world, people will instinctively find it hard to believe that you really did that whenever you end up on "the other side" from them in a race they care about. So again, I think you'll end up having to consider what you'll tell those people about why your strategy is the best strategy for your issue and how they can be confident that you really followed it.
  - r3trohack3r 6y ago
    This is super insightful. I wish I could give you more of a response, but your feedback really cuts to the core of something I need to reflect on and I don't have much to add beyond that. Thank you for calling it out <3
- joe-collins 6y ago
  I am jaded when it comes to promises of change. If you want to reach others like myself, that explanation of what you're doing needs to be up front. What are you doing that's new? Will you show your work, share those analyses? Rattling off "501(c)(3)" and "527" is technical detail. Keep it somewhere, but not the first thing on the "friendly" pages. I need to know that you'll spend my money on campaigning, not the laws that allow it.
  - r3trohack3r 6y ago
    I agree, it's technical jargon.. Do you have a better way of wording it? The core is that a 501(c)(3) legally _can not_ spend money on campaigning without losing their non-profit status. They are stuck in courts, lobbying, and talking about their causes. A 527 is allowed to actively campaign. If you donate to a 501(c)(3) you're money can't be used to campaign. If we want to vote them out, we need to do it on the same ground they do, a 527 puts us on equal footing.
    - joe-collins 6y ago
      Just state that there is a difference, and leave the details to be dug up later. "The laws governing non-profits mean that many popular organizations cannot campaign. However, we can, and we intend to call out yada yada yada."
  - r3trohack3r 6y ago
    I took another pass at the copy on the website. Does it help? (you may need a force refresh)
- rbecker 6y ago
  > We will prioritize based on election cycles (who is coming up for re-election), how much they've undermined these three measurements, and how close they are to the committees that are supposed to oversee these domains. If I may offer a suggestion, optimize also on how close an election is expected to be. It may take a lot of ads to swing some elections, but only few to swing others, and you want the most bang for your buck.

qchris 6y ago

Are you considering any options to allow donations to choose certain pools? For example, I think I'd be really interested in donating towards maintaining a thorough breakdown of politicians' records on mass surveillance or their stance on options like ranked-choice voting, but not as stoked about directly having my donation used for boots-on-the-ground campaigning in a district across the country. An option to ask for a donation to support different initiatives might be attractive, even if there were only three or four options.

r3trohack3r 6y ago
We hadn't considered this, but certainly will. At this stage (we just launched today) I don't think we have the resources to effectively manage donations that way. As we grow, I'll fit this into the roadmap. Also, if you feel passionately about a specific area and want to provide help/feedback, donations of time are always welcome and we are always here to listen.

specialist 6y ago

Okay. Question: What laws, policies have you passed? Who's on your board of directors? Who's advising? What's your fund raising experience? Suggestions: #1: Focus on one issue. Or create one org per issue. You can't assume allies will support your entire platform, so remove deal breakers. #2: Pace yourself for a marathon. For example, a friend of mine worked EIGHTEEN years to get the first statewide family leave act law passed. Had to build the coalition one vote at a time. #3: What are you for? Where's your model legislation? Be specific. Offense beats defense, have an affirmative agenda, etc. #4: Start locally. It's easier to move the needle, one jurisdiction at a time. #5: Why not partner with existing orgs, create a local chapter? Is there something wrong with the current public financing advocates? The people fighting for RCV? Bonus #6: Pick a strategy for privacy. Like extend property rights to personal data. Like new accounting rules to make data aggregation a financial liability. Something, anything that people can wrap their heads around.

r3trohack3r 6y ago
This is super valid, and something I spend a lot of time thinking about. The task ahead is monumental, but these are sub-goals. This spawned from an observation that our representative democracy isn't representative. We worked backwards from what caused that. The mission is cultivated from identifying and attempting to disrupt the viscous cycle of power imbalance. The strongest branch of the U.S. government is supposed to be the voters, not the few but the many, we aim to make that happen. I don't think any of these three points can succeed without the other two. Mass surveillance, if you click through, isn't about mass surveillance. It's about a government not being held accountable to it's own laws, which are meant to be governed by civilian oversight. Our government must follow it's own laws, it must pass laws that are foremost in line with our founding documents and then inline with their constituent's desires. The mechanism for civilian oversight is broken. While reading the ACLU FOIA requests and court documents, it was clear to me that the government wasn't playing by the rules. When you read the reasons the government kept these programs secret on write-ups from leaked documents, it was for fear of being subject to civilian oversight. This isn't how our government was designed to operate.
- 6y ago

jyz 6y ago

Why pick 527 vs 501(c)(4)? Specifically asking about your thoughts on the disclosure requirements w/ 527

r3trohack3r 6y ago
This is an area I know enough to be dangerous in, so would love to learn more if anyone has resources. From my understanding a 501(c)(4) is a social welfare organization that can engage in political activity as long as it isn't its primary purpose. I didn't want to risk us breaking that restriction. The IRS pages, FEC pages, and wikipedia is where I spent most of my time studying these orgs: https://www.irs.gov/charities-non-profits/other-non-profits/social-welfare-organizations https://www.irs.gov/charities-non-profits/other-non-profits/...