“Chicago police trying to keep the peace during the NATO summit may face their biggest test on Sunday when thousands of demonstrators were expected to march near the site where leaders of the military alliance begin a two-day meeting.” - Reuters, 5/20/12

On Thursday of last week, Americans Elect announced that the primary process to nominate an independent, Internet-driven candidate came to an end. The goal of Americans Elect, as described on its website, was to nominate a presidential ticket through the Internet that answers directly to voters—not the political system.

They wrote in their announcement on Thursday:

“However, the rules, as developed in consultation with the Americans Elect Delegates, are clear. As of this week, no candidate achieved the national support threshold required to enter the Americans Elect Online Convention in June.”

In response to this announcement, which has been bubbling for weeks, there was no shortage of ink to document the failure of Americans Elect.

The reasons for AE’s shortcoming are multiple depending on which pundit you chose to read – the weakness of moderates and/or independents, the fallacy of the Internet as a proving ground for change, the lack of transparency of the AE fundraising structure, the need for a big, name-brand candidate.

As with nearly all aspects of life, there is no one answer or reason for AE’s failure to nominate a candidate. Success involves so many intangibles – decision-making, timing and, even, luck – that to point to one area that caused AE’s outcome in 2012 would be an injustice to the work the organization put in and the challenge they faced.

However, with skimmerhat being an organization that is aiming to impact the political system and given the similarity of our core tenets – of providing the opportunity for education and a more powerful voice for individual citizens through an online platform – we would like to give our thoughts on AE’s situation.

Too Big, Too Soon

Americans Elect tackled a big problem – anger and discomfort with the current, two-party dominated political system. They wanted to change politics as usual.

And, who can really argue with that? Considering it’s been 15 years since Americans haven been as disgusted with the Federal government as they are today, according to a recent Pew survey.

They decided to do it through the Internet – a place that has flipped multiple industries on its head.

It seems, though, that AE might have gone too big, too soon. Not in the sense of the level of impact they wanted to make – because if you aren’t going big, then why are you doing it – but at the level of government they were trying to impact.

The presidential election is the Kentucky Derby of all elections – the crown jewel that even if you don’t pay attention to policy or campaigns at any other time, you watch presidential debates and commercials. It is high risk, high reward, when you consider the hurdles you have to jump to get a candidate on the ballot (looking at you, ballot access laws) and the fact that you can really only support one person in the end.

AE may have been better served trying to gain traction in Congressional or state elections, where the reward is still high – influence and possible election victories – but the risk is lower – namely the amount of money.

Look at Scott Brown’s election in 2010 or this year’s election in Indiana. They are Congressional elections and still attract national interest. We’ve seen movements like the Tea Party born out of passion in Congressional races.

As Dave Weigel of Slate wrote last week:

“You don’t break the power of the parties by running in a presidential election. You start with Congress.”

With this, the system that AE built was large and bulky, though sharp and eye-catching. There were lots of layers, features and moving parts for the layman to make sense of, which is understandable considering the challenge of constructing a “non-party” party structure in a presidential election.

But you can’t always count on that type of concentration from users, especially early on before you are established. In becoming a delegate through Americans Elect, it took time to fill out information, even though a delegate may not have clearly known who they would be supporting.

In studying startups and the philosophy of “lean methodology,” we at skimmerhat have discovered the importance of testing your hypothesis through a minimum viable product and then adjusting from there based on reaction. Then build and test again. It decreases the range of time it takes to create the product that best fits a target audience with the most possible success. Though we are far from experts, we believe this can be applied to government and the political structure.

Americans Elect was anything but lean. It was large and massive – in scope, in its target focus (presidential elections), and in the actual system that was built.

Transparent as Possible?

There are an endless amount of complaints with the current political system from citizens across the country. It is difficult to encapsulate all the emotions of Americans on a wide variety of issues, but the best word that can likely do so is – distrust.

Citizens on a large scale do not trust D.C., whether it is in terms of decision-making or moral makeup.

Therefore, when an organization aims to change politics as usual, they must first begin by bridging the wide canyon of distrust between politics and citizens.

Americans Elect did not help itself in this regard when they chose not to release complete information about their donors/investors, who wrote checks to raise $25 million for the project.

AE rebuffed this dispute by writing on their website:

“We intend to pay back the bulk of our initial financing as we recruit delegates, so that no single individual will have contributed more than $10K.”

Honorable, but not transparent.

It is not an upfront way to run a campaign upon the angst of politics as usual. In fact, it kind of sounds like politics as usual.

CEO Kahlil Byrd had reportedly said one of the reasons AE did not share their donor info was “because of the political environment we are in now” and that investors in AE need to be allowed to choose whether to disclose their own roles.

Again, when running a large presidential campaign, there are a number of aspects that an organization must take into consideration and weigh the pros and cons, and then make the best decision for the good of the organization and for the country.

Transparency should have been the easiest part for Americans Elect. Maybe their donors would have been the target of partisan attacks. Maybe the release of investor info would give pundits and critics more material to try to chop down AE. Those are risks, but not risks an organization that wants to be a shining star for political evolution should avoid.

AE put itself in the line of fire when they decided to shun complete transparency.

With that decision, they shunned the trust of Americans looking for something truly different. No bridge was built.

Looking to the Future

When evaluating Americans Elect in 2012, it is easy to take a hard line and call it a complete failure. Many have done so and, as we outlined, have gone far enough to say that AE’s stumble is a comment on the future of third parties or the Internet as a game-changer in political discourse.

We’re not so sure that is the correct position, regardless of the interest we have in this sector because of skimmerhat. We have a larger interest in individual Americans gaining a stronger voice/influence and letting them do with it what they will.

Failures are necessary to success, especially when the success is measured by a drastic change in the social norm. It is too easy to take a few failures and cast a wide net to determine that a certain change will never happen because we’ve never seen it before or can’t conceptualize it in our head given current circumstances. The most excellent examples of social or political evolution all seemed crazy at one point to a large group of people, but then it happened.

So, first as a community who is trying to impact change in our government, we must accept failures, and be open to a vision that might not make total sense at this very moment. That is not easy, particularly given the pressure of outside critique.

There are things we can take from each stumble, however, and apply it to the future. We outlined two of the main aspects above – the scope and size of AE and its system and the transparency put forth.

We, perhaps, should think smaller in order to make bigger change. Begin impacting lower levels/regions and individual citizens. Take a bottom-up approach. From our vantage point, influential movements begin at a lower level and then bubble up to the highest levels.

Also, movements don’t always try to change the status quo from the start; they, at times, begin within the current norms and flood their way out.

With the Internet, we must build a system that supports, not leads, this approach – smaller, intuitive and prepared for rapid change. Let the system be guided and molded by the people; the Americans who are invested in the future of our country.

Given this relationship, we must be transparent and open at all times. Unfortunately, citizens do not expect transparency when it comes to policy or politics because it typically isn’t present. Similar to how Zappos placed customer service at the core of its business model because customer service often sucked, we must be refreshingly and surprisingly transparent. Even if transparency might mean receiving negative feedback or trouble in circles that don’t need disrupting – disruption is really the whole point.

We believe we are at the very beginning of finding out how Americans engage with our government and its political system moving forward. There will be change and shifts in the future. There is no doubt in that. However, we hope we – and everyone else in the cross-section of government/politics and technology – can apply lessons we have learned in order to help support the positive change Americans are looking for.

Americans Elect failed in 2012.

It is not a failure of our future or our potential.

- Spencer

“Opponents of a U.S. law they claim may subject them to indefinite military detention for activities including news reporting and political activism persuaded a federal judge to temporarily block the measure.” - Bloomberg, 5/17/12

We’ve posted this image on the blog before, but it never hurts to reinforce the larger point. The power of citizens is what skimmerhat, and many of the initiatives within the Gov 2.0 and open government movement, is predicated upon; it’s the backbone.

Americans and their government can work together for a better country, but collectively as individuals, we man the controls for the direction America will move. That should never be lost on us as citizens. We all can strongly and thoughtfully wield this power.

- Spencer

“Raising the spectre of a Greek exit, the German chancellor said “solidarity for the euro” was threatened by the ongoing political crisis in Athens.” - The Telegraph, 5/14/12 

At a social gathering a few nights ago, we were talking to a successful businessman about skimmerhat and the larger idea behind what we are building. Beyond business, he has also been involved in political campaigns, either as a paid or a volunteer staffer.

During the discussion, he admitted something that we believe an increasing number of Americans are feeling: “I don’t care much any more about Republican or Democrat, right or left, I care about solving problems.”

When it comes down to it, it is hard to imagine many citizens disagreeing with that — the idea of creating an atmosphere where we can solve problems rather than choose sides.

While defining one’s individual ideology will obviously place him/her at different points on a map, when you begin talking about ideas and the weight of those ideas in a free-thinking and open way, you can begin solving problems rather than create the divisiveness that is crippling to progress — the latter of which is on display on the federal level as Americans are being held hostage by the process.

Regardless of political affiliation, a quote from Noam Chomsky sums up the type of discourse that ultimately harms, but is often seen in, America:

The smart way to keep people passive and obedient is to strictly limit the spectrum of acceptable opinion, but allow very lively debate within that spectrum - even encourage the more critical and dissident views. That gives people the sense that there’s free thinking going on, while all the time the presuppositions of the system are being reinforced by the limits put on the range of the debate.

Americans are tired of bring placed in a box when they go to the voting booth, turn on the television, or listen to the radio.

Let’s not limit the spectrum of acceptable opinion.

Technology is a great way to turn this debate on its head — as it has in so many other industries — and give the power to individuals.

With technology, perhaps, we can lower the barrier to entry for citizens to engage in and make sense of the process and find candidates from across the country who represent their ideas while also taking action to make his/her election a reality.

Perhaps, we can also lower the barrier to entry for candidates who find it difficult to fundraise, especially when facing candidates backed by the deep pockets of PACs and Super PACs.

With skimmerhat, we are hoping to turn the perhaps into a reality.

— Spencer

“Two big cases addressing marriage rights for gays and lesbians are on track to reach the U.S. Supreme Court as soon as this year, keeping the focus on an issue President Barack Obama reignited with his endorsement this week.” - Reuters, 5/12/12

While Americans can’t exactly return their Congressmen where they found them, in light of record low approval ratings and stagnant development, we can control the future of our country and have our voices more accurately represented.

Citizens have, and always will have, the power to pave the path of America.

Here are a few other political cartoons we have been posting periodically.

- Spencer

“North Carolina has become the 31st state to add an amendment on marriage to its constitution, with voters banning same-sex marriage and barring legal recognition of unmarried couples by state and local governments.” - News Observer, 5/9/12

An interesting article was published by Politico a couple days ago that reviewed all the ways the FEC is beginning to loosen campaign finance restrictions on Internet and mobile technology.

Donors will be able to give to candidates and campaigns through shopping rebated programs and texts, just to name a few.

But this push to allow Americans to leverage the Internet and technology to make donations comes down to a certain type of donor — the small donor. We’ve written before how the small donor can make an impact, especially when candidates leverage technology. And it seems many others, in addition to the FEC, are seeing that trend as well.

The difference in this type of donor is even more pronounced with so much talk and angst centered around PACs and Super PACs (remember a recent study showed that 196 Americans gave 80% of all Super PAC money in 2011, which equates to .000063 percent of all Americans).

Taken together, the new programs could help recruit legions of new political contributors who can’t afford to cut a $2,500 check to a campaign or wire $1 million to a super PAC, but wouldn’t think twice about firing off 10 bucks through their iPhones to their favorite Republican or Democrat.

And the new landscape could help small-dollar donors compete with big bucks flowing into politics from the likes of super PAC givers Sheldon Adelson, Harold Simmons and Jeffrey Katzenberg.

Cash from smaller donors “can absolutely be a counterweight to super PACs,” said Brett Kappel, a campaign finance attorney at Arent Fox who is representing the groups pushing for donations via text.

He pointed to President Barack Obama and the unprecedented number of small donations he raised during the 2008 cycle, which helped fuel his rise to the White House.

Donations via text messaging, in particular, could revolutionize political giving, campaign finance experts say.

Instead of wooing wealthy donors to write big checks, candidates could encourage a crowd full of supporters to make an impulse donation by punching a few keys.

It’s a fundraising tactic that has already yielded big bucks for charities, particularly in the aftermath of natural disasters.

The Federal Election Commission is expected to weigh in on the legality of campaign donations via text by next month.

With more tools given to Americans, the likelihood of more citizens becoming engaged in the political process increases as well, according to a group pushing for the addition of text contributions.

The text message proposal, for example, earned the backing of several prominent government reform groups and a union, including Public Campaign, the Campaign Legal Center, Citizens for Responsibility and Ethics in Washington, Communication Workers of America, Democracy Matters, Demos, Public Citizen, Rootstrikers, United Republic and U.S. PIRG.

“In addition to amplifying the voices of small donors, it can increase civic engagement by bringing more people into the process and enable members of Congress to spend more time with constituents and less time dialing for dollars,” the groups wrote in a letter to the FEC.

Campaign finance deregulation advocates, for their part, laud the decisions’ 1st Amendment implications, praising the FEC for improving peoples’ ability to exercise their political speech rights.

“They’re all great ideas, and the FEC needs to keep helping move campaigns into the modern era,” said David Keating, president of the pro-campaign deregulation group Center for Competitive Politics.“By allowing voters more options, you enhance their ability to participate in campaigns.”

It is exciting the see these evolutions in campaign finance. We believe the power of the individual in the political process is strong when the right tools and opportunities are available.

And when individuals gather together behind a belief or group of ideas, they can change the country. Regardless of special interests, lobbyists and PACs or Super PACs.

— Spencer

“U.S. prosecutors and defense attorneys for five defendants in the September 11 attacks dug in on Sunday for a long legal battle that one lawyer said may never be resolved.” - Reuters, 5/6/12

In our last post regarding Transparency Camp 2012 — a gathering of open data/open government activists hosted by the Sunlight Foundation — we touched on the concept that each of us has a role to play in the push for a better, more accountable government.

The initiative is a complex one. Just like the popular aphorism that “beauty is in the eye of a beholder,” to what extent “better government” looks like is visualized in many different ways by many different people. No single parameter defines what a better government means to every American.

The process itself is not easy, either. There are layers upon layers to our government, and all need improvement in not only how government serves citizens, but how it is held accountable as well. But, the multiple layers, divisions, sections, agencies, bureaucracies, and outside entities (such as government contractors) make government — from federal level down to local municipalities — too large, and too expansive, to be tackled in a single front.

And, that’s where we all have a role to play.

A Functioning Government

A better government won’t come from one place. It will originate from multiple initiatives through the cooperation of groups across the civic space. In the Gov 2.0 and open government movement, this is happening.

However, there appears to be one aspect absent. This missing element can be encapsulated in a tweet by Code for America Executive Director Jennifer Pahlka:

@pahlkadot:…technologists are more interested in getting the government to function than they are in getting their guy elected http://bit.ly/JQ5Iuf

The article Pahlka references in her Tweet is here. It largely discusses how open data and open government technologists are pushing Gov 2.0 forward. And, skimmerhat couldn’t be happier about this. But, the troubling part of Pahlka’s quote is that she seems to minimize the value of government policy and representation. This theme — we can help the government function through our ingenuity, sans politics – is inherent in Code for America’s overall branding.

Even more troubling is the trend to distance oneself from politics or political motivation, which seems to be pervasive throughout the Gov 2.0, open data and open government movements in the civic space.

It’s not that this separation isn’t understandable. Politics is complicated, divisive and in many cases, downright hideous. Politics has become such a “dirty word” that it is often avoided in conversation with family and friends.

But, we can’t afford to ignore politics, no matter how messy it may be. If we do, things will only worsen.

A recent Politico article titled “Congress: It’s going to get worse” sums up the state of our nation:

As it stands, Congress is more polarized than at any time since Reconstruction, according to data compiled by Keith Poole and Howard Rosenthal, political scientists who study congressional voting.

And getting more polarized, they correctly argue.

When presented with such a bleak picture, it makes sense that many technologists, hackers, and developers are reluctant to take a political stand when they can be effective in other areas that lack the divisiveness. They may also believe that they must first make an impact in other areas of government before tackling the political process or that too much emphasis is traditionally put on politics.

Unfortunately, this approach is much like trying to fix the engine on a car with a flat tire. It may run better, but you’re still not going to go real far.

Using the “Force”

Having an app for uncovering fire hydrants, or a platform to take a picture and report a problem with traffic lights are great examples of making government more efficient through civic hacking. And, creating APIs for data that previously were buried deep into a filing cabinet is indispensable for making government more transparent.

These endeavors compare to policy work on issues on civil liberties, tax reform and regulation — which are policy areas necessary to the lives of Americans across the country. And, this policy work is just as needed as the work of new APIs (as was discussed in the Hacking Society conversation a couple weeks ago).

Here’s why: In another recent Politico article, a Pew survey showed that it’s been 15 years since Americans haven been as disgusted with the Federal government as they are today:

Today, just one in three has a favorable view of the federal government — the lowest level in 15 years, according to a Pew survey. The majority of Americans remain satisfied with their local and state governments — 61 percent and 52 percent, respectively — but only 33 percent feel likewise about the federal government.

Voices aren’t being heard. People aren’t being represented.

It’s the car with a new engine, but a flat tire. Government may begin to run more efficiently — which benefits all citizens. But, if government isn’t listening to those citizens, we’re still not moving in a positive direction as a country.

Now, imagine applying the strength of Gov 2.0 — which already promotes engagement, transparency and accountability — to make better sense of the “p” word, and make sense of candidates involved in politics. And, not just on the “backend,” after candidates are in office, but on the frontend, too — when candidates are competing for votes in the electoral process.

Skimmerhat envisions this ideal in a system that allows Americans to find the candidates they want to believe in before they are given the limited slate of options on a general election ballot. And, to sidestep the current polarization of politics, we want to build a non-partisan way of finding these candidates.

Our idea uses the momentum of Gov 2.0 as a way for individuals and small donors to unite behind ideas, allowing individual citizens to directly influence the direction of the country — even in the age of PACs and Super PACs.

Imagine lowering the barrier to entry for citizens and candidates alike.

Then imagine this working in tandem with all of the other aspects of Gov 2.0, where data is more accessible and transparent, and where government is more accountable.

Would our government improve?

We think so, made possible through the power of citizen engagement — a core tenet of organizations like Code for America.

A Goal to Pursue Consistently

It won’t be easy. It will be infinitely more difficult than writing about it in a blog entry. After all, there is no utopia where Americans will be in 100 percent approval of the federal government.

However, just because it’s a challenge doesn’t mean we should avoid it, or ignore the problem altogether.

In a post by David Eaves — where he addresses Tom Slee’s post about the open data movement being a joke — he writes:

Open data is not the solution for Open Government (I don’t believe there is a single solution, or that Open Government is an achievable state of being - just a goal to pursue consistently), and I don’t believe anyone has made the case that it is. I know I haven’t. But I do believe open data can help. Like many others, I believe access to government information can lead to better informed public policy debates and hopefully some improved services for citizens (such as access to transit information). I’m not deluded into thinking that open data is going to provide a steady stream of obvious “gotcha moments” where government malfeasance is discovered, but I am hopeful that government data can arm citizens with information that the government is using to inform its decisions so that they can better challenge, and ultimately help hold accountable, said government.

As we mentioned at the outset of this post: there is no one approach to solving this problem. The solution combines multiple approaches that, when working together, can create a real plan for change.

Advocates of open data, open government and Gov 2.0 are creating the tools to arm Americans with more power, and creating them under the umbrella of a better, more accountable government. We’re building a process of finding and funding our representatives motivated by the same goal.

We’re all under the same umbrella.

“Employers in the U.S. added fewer workers than forecast in April and the jobless rate unexpectedly declined as people left the labor force, underscoring concern the world’s largest economy may be losing speed.” - Bloomberg, 5/4/12

Here is a cartoon for your amusement/fury, to continue the trend of political cartoons we have been posting periodically.

At skimmerhat, we want to place that pencil — the one held by lobbyists, special interests and Super PACs — into your hands, the citizens. Americans should write the agenda for our Congressmen.

We are working on a series of original skimmerhat political cartoons, and we will obviously be posting those here on the blog. But also check out our political cartoon boards on Pinterest — one for general cartoons we run across and the other for our future original cartoons.

- Spencer

“President Barack Obama, speaking early Wednesday in Afghanistan at the tail end of a surprise visit there, discussed how the war will end and promised a steady drawdown of U.S. troops.” - CNN, 5/2/12

The title of the post (which was also a tweet) pretty much sums up our experience at TransparencyCamp over the weekend. It was hard not to be energized by a group of people who want to create a better and more open government.

But they aren’t just saying it, they are doing it, which is inspiring.

The weekend gave us a chance to see in person how people from a wide array of backgrounds are pushing the open government and Gov 2.0 movement forward.

We sat in on sessions with those with development expertise like Dan Schneiderman, Jeff Schuler, Waldo Jaquith, Juan-Pablo Velez and Dan Melton; all of whom have worked and are working on amazing projects to give citizens a better glimpse into our government. And they love data.

We sat in on sessions with those who research tirelessly like Evan Mackinder, Kevin McNellis, Tyler Evilsizer, Mike Krejci and Jay Costa. They work to provide the most accurate view into money in politics. It’s an incredibly difficult and tedious job, but a service that is absolutely necessary.

We sat in on sessions with those who help make sense of the whole scene like Alex Howard, Nikki Usher and Matthew Hall. The relationship among all of the moving parts in open government is pivotal in order for it to move forward with continuity and strength.

We sat and listened to Todd Park, the United States Chief Technology Officer, explain the future of open government in a fashion that was contagious with giddiness. To have a leader inside the government like Park only lends more credence to where we are heading as a country in regards to transparency; something everyone is giddy about.

While the individual names making an impact are important and endless (everyone at Tcamp has an awesome story), a better government is more about the collection of individuals than the individuals themselves. There are many roles to fill, and each is vital in reaching success. For us to realize the true potential of our government, we all must embrace this belief. It seems many of the people who took part in TransparencyCamp already get this, which is fantastic.

We hope to be a part of this movement, helping Americans make more informed decisions, engage in the process and have their voices more accurately represented in Washington. We are but one cog in a much larger machine moving our country forward, however. We couldn’t be happier about that.

P.S. The Sunlight Foundation deserves major props for handling such a large crowd with efficiency and care. It was professional all the way, and it is awesome how affordable they made the conference for everyone attending. Oh yeah, and the food trucks rocked!

— Spencer

“The United States faces a tense week in China as high-level talks on trade and global hot spots like Iran and North Korea open in the shadow of a blind Chinese activist’s bold escape from house arrest to seek U.S. protection in Beijing.” - Reuters, 4/30/12

We’ve been out of the loop on the blog the past few days, but for good reason as we soaked in all the open government and Gov 2.0 goodness that was TransparencyCamp on Saturday and Sunday.

We will have thoughts and reaction from the weekend in the coming days, but yesterday afternoon (Sunday) after the camp wrapped up we took a few hours to stroll around the sights D.C. has to offer, as the above pictures display. We checked out a few Smithsonians, the Capitol, the White House, the Lincoln Memorial and so on.

And it was awesome. While we and all the others working for a better government continue to push forward, it is nice to unwind for a few hours and admire all that our country has accomplished and stood for through its history; a great cap to a great weekend.

- Spencer

“Today, just one in three has a favorable view of the federal government — the lowest level in 15 years, according to a Pew survey. The majority of Americans remain satisfied with their local and state governments — 61 percent and 52 percent, respectively — but only 33 percent feel likewise about the federal government.” - Politico, 4/26/12

The above image shows the route (ATL to DC) we are taking tomorrow when we head to Transparency Camp, a weekend-long event put on by the Sunlight Foundation.

We wrote about Transparency Camp recently here. It is where people from a range of backgrounds gather to share their knowledge about how to use new technologies and policies to make our government really work for the people — and to help our people work smarter with our government.

We have been looking forward to the weekend because we believe we can learn from the knowledge and experience that will be in the room. Even more, it will be exciting to be surrounded by people who want more for our government and Americans and are working to make it happen.

We will be sure to update the blog and our social media links to document our experience in the coming days and weeks. So, be on the lookout for that.

Here’s to safe travels and greater government openness and transparency.

- Spencer

“Two more U.S. Secret Service agents are resigning over a scandal in Colombia involving prostitutes, the U.S. Secret Service on Tuesday.” - Reuters, 4/24/12

A great conversation happened today around a table in Manhattan. Though there was probably more than one great discussion in the city, the conversation we are referring to was an event called Hacking Society and hosted by Union Square Ventures, a venture capital firm in New York.

The discussion centered around how networks are transforming our economy and society, and what this means for the future of innovation, competition, regulation and policy advocacy.

Around the table was a who’s who of thinkers, business leaders and thought leaders spanning across various sectors of education, business and government, including Jeff Jarvis (CUNY Journalism), Lawrence Lessig (Harvard Law School), Rep. Jim Cooper (TN), Tiffiniy Cheng (Fight for the Future), Craig Newmark (Craigslist), Yancey Strickler (Kickstarter), Fred Wilson (Union Square Ventures), John Perry Barlow (Electronic Frontier Foundation), Alexis Ohanian (Reddit) and Luigi Zingales (Univ of Chicago Booth School of Business).

While a number of subjects were touched upon – who are the “leaders” of systems like Kickstarter or Reddit and how markets change/adjust/stay the same around the evolution of these systems – a poignant topic for us at skimmerhat and for, seemingly, everyone around that table in Manhattan was the subject of money in politics.

SOPA and the protection of the Internet and its networks was at the forefront of the discussion (traditionally, tech people are not the most likely to lobby), but it inevitably traveled down the road of the influence of money and Super PACs in D.C.

Then, Lawrence Lessig dropped the stat that was likely the most tweeted sentence of the entire discussion. He referenced a study that showed 196 Americans gave 80% of all Super PAC money in 2011, which equates to .000063 percent of all Americans.

It’s stunning when put in those terms, and it certainly stunned many of the people in Manhattan.

The discussion then turned to, “Well, how do we solve it? Do we create coalitions? Do we actually lobby to get money out of political races? And how do we engage citizens and cause change through all of this?”

It got a little heated at times and, like many things in life that deal with people, there is no one absolute answer. But when you are talking about ambitious and experienced minds, that isn’t enough.

We at skimmerhat believe we are building a network that – along with the help of others fighting the same fight – can make a difference in the political system when it comes to this discussion.

Your instant reaction may be, “Skimmerhat says it is dedicated to finding and funding candidates based upon ideology. One of your main initiatives is funding, how can you get money out of politics?”

We believe the answer to the problem begins at the bottom with individual citizens, not at the top with lobbyists and D.C. insiders.

Here’s how:

• Build a non-partisan platform that includes all Congressional candidates, regardless of party affiliation or district lines.

• Allow voters to intuitively find candidates based upon location or the ideas that are important to them. Maybe it is the environment or maybe it is regulation, with an issue like Citizen’s United. Or maybe it is a number of issues/pillars of the ideological spectrum.

• When voters find candidates who believe what they believe, encourage them to take action and donate.

• Stress to voters the importance of holding candidates accountable after they receive their support or donations.

• Make the entire process as transparent and open as possible, when it comes to the issues, the matching process, the donation process. Everything.

Now, here’s why:

• The voter education process on candidates is cumbersome and laborious, as we have shown before. Americans aren’t lazy, the political system is complex. And better tools are necessary.

• Ideas are becoming more important to citizens than party. Four in 10 voters consider themselves independent. A platform with all candidates naturally places party affiliation on the backburner. A platform with candidates regardless of district lines allows voters to find candidates with their belief system anywhere. You can support someone outside your district if they can make a difference in your life while serving in D.C. (they can).

• As you saw with the aforementioned Super PAC reference, a tiny, almost statistically nonexistent amount of people are propping up these types of organizations. But, individual, small donors can make an impact, and have proven so.

• If developments like the STOCK Act have shown Americans anything, it is that we must hold candidates accountable.

• Americans deserve to know the how of every system they use. Transparency is not an option, but a requirement.

When a network is built where voters can intuitively educate themselves, take action and hold politicians accountable all while supplied with the openness and transparency they expect, change will happen.

If Americans want money out of politics, marching on D.C. is a good start. But finding, supporting, donating to and voting for the representatives that will make that a reality will be far more effective in the short-term and the long-term. We don’t believe that is just a line to promote skimmerhat, but the truth of the situation.

This is our current political system. We have to start somewhere.

Today’s Hacking Society talk revolved around networks that transform previous ways of doing things, turn them on their head and allow people to use them in new ways that create new markets. But it’s not as if old networks disappeared over night, transformation had to start somewhere.

Just like us.

A large, well-connected and informed base of voters and small donors can transform our government, whether it is in relation to Citizen’s United and money in politics or any other issue(s).

But it must be accomplished from the bottom-up through a movement of individuals who need an outlet. We think that is clear.

Skimmerhat itself won’t change the way our country is run, but it will provide a network for Americans to keep a firm grip on the controls.

We are excited to find out.

— Spencer

“In its second-biggest case this term, the court - fresh from hearing the Obama healthcare overhaul case - will consider on Wednesday whether a tough Arizona immigration crackdown strayed too far into the federal government’s powers.” - Reuters, 4/22/12

We’ve written a good amount about the anger and confusion Americans are feeling right now with their representatives, especially those in Congress. The emotional disconnect is fuel for skimmerhat’s initiative — supplying Americans with a tool to help have their voices more accurately represented in Washington. The three main steps to reach this goal include education, action and accountability.

As Americans, we must learn who is running and what their ideology is, take action to get them into office and, finally, hold them accountable once they assume their position as a public servant.

We at skimmerhat are developing a platform to make this systematic and fluid, rather than fragmented and cumbersome.

The first step — education — is an important one in order for the next two to have an impact. So, as we build, we wanted to know where Americans go to learn about candidates running for Congress. And, what that experience is like.

Although we want to solve Americans’ disconnect with our representatives, we must first help with the process of voter education, if there is a problem there in the first place.

Of course, we had our assumptions, but we wanted our own research, along with the research we’ve read, to prove these assumptions. So far, we gathered 150 responses from respondents who are registered to vote, comprise all age groups and almost all of whom do not know about skimmerhat or the platform we are buidling.

Here we asked where respondents currently gather info about Senate/House candidates:

As you see, the majority of people already use Internet sites or blogs to research candidates, while their individual party structure ranks last.

In the “Other” category, two respondents listed the individual website of candidates while another said “Friends and family not affiliated with a party.” And a few more listed specific news channels or radio talk shows.

Then, we asked the respondents how they would classify the information-gathering process:

Time-consuming and confusing clearly outranked any other options. This section is where we received the most interesting answers in the “Other” category, which shed more light into the minds of voters. Here is a sample of the written responses:

• So much bad media, lousy questioning and hard to find the truth. However, it is there if you are informed and know where to look. If NOT informed, and you get news from only one source, you simply are not going to have the information you need.
• Don’t know who to believe.They are so 1 party minded they only print the bad about the other ones.
• The process is challenging because there is not enough information forthcoming and readily available.
• Slanted. It can be difficult to sort out the truth behind the story.
• Sometimes it isn’t clear who is running where until right before voting day.
• Haphazard
• Cryptic

If those answers, combined with the overall response to the question, don’t make you question the process of gathering information on Congressional candidates, nothing likely will.

When you look at various aspects of our government, it is obvious that citizens need better access, more transparency and more intuitive tools in order to make the decisions that can improve our government. We believe we are building one with skimmerhat that, along with other tools in the Gov 2.0/open government movement, will prove significant in Americans realizing our country’s potential in the years to come.

If you have comments, questions or additions to this post, let us know.

— Spencer

“Americans’ satisfaction with the way things are going in the country leveled off in April at 24%, slightly lower than March’s 26%. Satisfaction remains higher than in any month in 2011 except May, and substantially higher than the recent low point last summer of 11%” - Gallup, 4/19/12

The image above is our illustration of some of the statistics strongly encouraging the development and growth of platforms like skimmerhat.  By bringing together independent and issues-based voters and candidates disenfranchised by the traditional political spectrum and empowering them through their own ideas, we may be able to see a crack in the false dichotomy that has led to partisan bickering and dysfunctional government in a time we need it least.

- Max

Or, more importantly, why do we continue to let them lead us down a path that results in historically low Congressional approval ratings and millions of Americans shunning traditional party dogma?

Isn’t it time for us to pump the brakes and take control? Skimmerhat thinks so. 

—Andrew

“The District’s attorney general said Wednesday that he will sue former city employees who collected unemployment benefits while working. District officials have estimated that the city had paid as much as $800,000 in jobless benefits to working city employees since 2009.” - Washington Post, 4/18/12

Open government is being discussed more and more these days. And thankfully, it is also being discussed by the right people — those in government. Such is true this week with the Open Government Partnership conference, which is being held in Brazil.

Alex Howard of O’Reilly Media, among others, has done a great job covering the event and the topics of discussion:

A historic Open Government Partnership launched in New York City last September with 8 founding countries. Months later representatives from 73 countries and 55 governments have come together to present their open government action plans and formally endorse the principles in the Open Government Partnership. Yesterday, hundreds of attendees from government, civil society, media and the private sector watched in person and online as Brazilian President Dilma Rousseff spoke about her country’s efforts to root out corruption and engage the Brazilian people in governance and more active citizenship. United States Secretary of State Hillary Clinton preceded her, defining an open or closed society as a key dividing line of the 21st century.

Today’s agenda included more regional breakouts and an opening plenary session on the “Responsibility and Challenges that Come with Openness.”

Here is a link with a number of interviews with leaders from around the world discussing the importance of open government. It’s good stuff.

— Spencer