5 ms·

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.

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.