Open Funding Politics

[JasonHears]

There's something to be said about Ron Paul's ability to raise millions of dollars from individuals across the US via the internet. He's proven a model of political funding that caught fire with Howard Dean. If the candidate has a strong message, the people will support the campaign.

I think it would be a tremendous party platform for the Open Source party to say that all funds received from the party are from individual donors. We don't take PAC or other special interest money. We run on ideas that we can show broad support for based on the income we receive. We know we're on target when people start donating. If we hit a message as strong as the one hit on by Ron Paul, then we get a resonance on the internet that floods the party coffers.

The difficult, and most important part, is being effective with whatever amount of money we receive. We won't get $4.3 million in a day. So how do we turn $500 in to an effective campaign so that people don't feel it's a waste of time and money to donate to the cause?

[RU Sirius]

I think this is pretty premature. I;d ask you and anyone to help all of us understand the rules around evolving a political party since we're (the administrators of this site) still looking at the options, Anyone with genuine expertise in this area... particularly in starting from scratch, please pipe up.

RU

[Sedicious]

What options? I mean, if you're serious about this openness business, doesn't it make sense to include this along with the party platform in open discussion? Can we start by stating what the options are, "in a language that everybody here can easily understand"?

[Feral!]

I've been involved in ballot access fights a few times - it's pretty tough, expensive and time consuming. Just the way "They" want it! As far as I understand, you have to work it on a state-by-state basis, and in most states it involves collecting thousands of signatures. In all honesty, I think the most effective course of action is to take the "if we can't beat 'em, join 'em" approach and actually form a PAC... we could collect money and provide support to independent candidates all over the country without worrying about having the party name on the ballot.

[John Perkins]

I think this raises an interesting point to debate: should we take our pick of the litter so to speak, or should we start breeding our own candidates. Of course, before any of that we still got quite a bit to figure out... namely how we can sucesfully herd cats.

[Sedicious]

It shouldn't have to be all that much work if you get a lot of hands working on it, and make smart use of the web. I mean, if Ron Paul decides, after losing several primaries, to run as an Independent, how long do you think it would take his supporters to gather the requisite signatures? Not long at all, I think. The key is to cultivate self-organization, just make it as easy as possible for people to step up to the plate and make it happen.

I think the big downside to a PAC is that there aren't enough independent candidates out there to lend support to. I think if you want to smash the duopoly, you need to establish a new party.

I would love to see it formed as a coalition of Libertarians and Greens, and Reformers, and every other minor party with any sympathy for our platform, but I think we shouldn't count on that happening. I think it would be a great idea, though, to organize a convention for all these minor parties to meet and discuss the potential for forming a coalition. Hopefully to be attended by several PACs, like MoveOn, as well. But I think, again, if you want to smash the duopoly, then you need to nominate candidates, and the way to do that is as a party.

[RU Sirius]

Actually Sedicious we probably don't know any more than you do, but Jon has suggested it might make the most sense to start a "527" and then transition into a political party. (527 is basically what Feral is talking about below)

There's no hesitation about "speaking openly", only hesitation about speaking out of our asses. Sometimes it's best to present a thought out proposal... although I'm not sure that we're coming up with anything too profound...

[Sedicious]

OK, listen, I really liked that in your first reply, here, you didn't just say what didn't need doing yet, but also gave a hint about what really does need doing.

I just would have preferred rather more than a hint. You've apparently been thinking about the issue, at least a little bit, behind the scenes. That's fine. But since you didn't quickly arrive at a clear answer, then it seems to me it would have been smart to then put it on the table for wider discussion. Let everyone know what you're working on, what the hold-up(s) are, and what questions you'd like answers to. Not just for the sake of transparency, but more importantly, at this point, to get people involved, and keep them engaged, to cultivate a sense that things are moving, and they can continue to move as quickly as people are willing to make them move. You can't build a groundswell if you're not giving people enough to do.

[Yodhe]

"There's no hesitation about "speaking openly", only hesitation about speaking out of our asses."
- RU Sirius

Seems like a traditional throat chakra blockage going on there. ;)

[Gary F. Moraco]

Sarcasm aside most of us are capable of doing this as long as they dont push just one or two issues.I have the time and sufficient understanding of what is nessesary.Of coarse your aware of my lack of computer skills but I'd be willing to work with some one.i can compile the blog and get the message concise.I'll also have to clean the year old salsa out of my keyboard.

[Corn-Fed]

The 529 or PAC approach sounds good to me - soften from within the system and then mold it to your own desired shape.

[Sedicious]

I've assembled a page on the wiki with some points of reference, and as a place for people to jump right in and get started: Open Source Party Charter.

[uncle osbert]

aren't we kind of a pac? i think the current hysteria about corporations is a little silly... they're just groups of people. let's see how evil they actually are before we refuse their cash.

additionally, i'm in favor of flexibility in tune with the people we're potentially serving... but simply tapping into popular political ideas is arguably what got us the parties we have now. the democrats and republicans are both already playing that game, which is why they're so big but also so unsatisfying. ron paul is already taking advantage of some of the same hot button issues while he holds up the constitution... it would be nice if someone would be willing to abandon them entirely, in favor of blazing a new trail that was actually in line with constitutional ideas itself.