6-0

Thu, 02 Aug 2012 16:52:11 -0400

“A North Dakota court has preliminarily upheld the first-ever use of an unmanned drone to assist in the arrest of an American citizen.” US News & World Report, 8/2/12

The summary reads: “The Commission concluded that skimmerhat’s proposed platform would be permissible under the Federal Election Campaign Act of 1971, as amended, (the Act) and Commission regulations.”

And, that’s pretty much that.

After many, many months of researching, writing, editing, conference-calling, and waiting, the FEC voted 6-0 in favor of skimmerhat’s advisory opinion request. Cue the music and let the bubbly flow.

The AO approval is no small order. Since our business model takes us into Federal elections, dealing with the FEC was an inevitability. And, getting the blessing from the FEC is a huge hurdle in avoiding any sort of future complications with election law.

So, yeah…we’re pretty stoked.

If you want to read the final draft of the Advisory Opinion Response, go here for the minutes from the meeting.

Thanks to everybody who made this happen. And, thanks you all of you for your continuing support.

- Andrew

“The eyes of the world will focus on Britain tonight — and they should “B” prepared for the...

Thu, 26 Jul 2012 22:15:41 -0400

“The eyes of the world will focus on Britain tonight — and they should “B” prepared for the greatest show ever seen. The very Best of British will be on display as the 2012 Olympic Games finally kick off with a dazzling £27million opening ceremony viewed by billions across the globe.” - The Sun, 7/26/12

A few weeks ago we posted that our long awaited “Advisory Opinion Request” (AOR) with the Federal Election Commission (FEC) was finally live and online. Such requests are standard for any person, or organization, that will be taking actions that may fall under regulations set forth by the FEC regarding elections. It’s a interesting and fascinating process, and can save you a lot of headaches (and fines) by making sure everything is kosher before you, say, build a business.

Well, we just got word today that the FEC’s general counsel has presented a draft version of the Advisory Opinion (AO). And, it was great, great news for us. Essentially everything we plan to do is permissible under the Federal Election Campaign Act (FECA), and is — really — about everything we could have hoped for.

Needless to say, we’re doing a little bit of a “happy dance” right now.

To read a copy of the draft(s), you can download the .pdf here.

The FEC will be taking public comment on the draft AO, and then will have a public hearing we’re skimmerhat will be participating remotely, and answering any questions the Commissioners may have regarding the facts of our plan. This is scheduled to take place on Aug. 2. Then, after that, they will vote on whether to approve one of the two drafts (the difference between the two being if skimmerhat must charge candidates a fee for access to manage their candidate profiel; one says we do, the other says we don’t). We expect to hear back officially the second week in August.

So, cross your fingers the good news keeps coming in. And, thanks again for all your support.

“Blistering heat blanketed much of the eastern United...

Mon, 02 Jul 2012 08:56:40 -0400

“Blistering heat blanketed much of the eastern United States for the third straight day on Sunday, after violent storms that took at least 15 lives and knocked out power to more than 3 million customers.” - Reuters, 7/2/12

The skimmerhat AOR is officially up on the FEC’s website, as shown in the picture above. If you click this link (http://saos.nictusa.com/saos/searchao) and then go to “Pending Advisory Opinion Requests,” you can read it there.

We are pretty excited to hear the ruling/outcome from the FEC. Stay tuned!

— Spencer

“Attorney General Eric Holder agreed to meet with Rep. Darrell Issa (R-Calif.) on Tuesday as...

Tue, 19 Jun 2012 07:53:41 -0400

“Attorney General Eric Holder agreed to meet with Rep. Darrell Issa (R-Calif.) on Tuesday as part of his attempt to stave off a vote to hold him in contempt of Congress.” - The Hill, 6/19/12

We are a week late on mentioning this on the blog, but since it is a major development in terms of campaign finance we still wanted to touch upon it.

Last week the FEC ruled in favor of the use of text messaging by political committees to receive contributions. The ruling came when the FEC issued an advisory opinion requested by m-Qube, Inc (it was their fourth request). Here’s an excerpt from the press release:

The Commission concluded Monday that m-Qube, Inc.’s proposal that would allow political committees to use mobile phone text messaging to collect contributions is consistent with the recordkeeping and reporting requirements of the Federal Election Campaign Act of 1971, as amended, (the Act) and Commission regulations and conforms to the Act’s prohibition on corporate contributions. The Commission further concluded that the proposal does not implicate the contribution forwarding requirements of the Act and satisfies the segregation requirement for commercial vendors that process political contributions.

We wrote a few weeks ago about the possibility of this development as the FEC begins to embrace more and more initiatives to engage the small donor — or those who contribute $200 or less.

Megan Wilson of The Hill wrote last week about how the text messaging will work:

Text donations would be capped at between $10 and $50 per billing cycle and campaigns would enforce that restriction through tracking donations from a single user’s mobile phone number to a single premium short code assigned to the political committee. The short code would also enable the aggregator and carriers to ensure “the $50 limit is never exceeded for one political recipient.”

m-Qube wrote that they could block all foreign and pre-paid cellphone numbers to comply with FEC donation regulations. According to the advisory opinion, users will receive a text response following their donation text that reads, for example:

“Reply YES to give $20 to Romney & certify ur 18+ & donating with own funds, not foreign national or Fed contractor. Terms m-qube.com/r Msg&Data Rates may Apply.”

The link to m-Qube’s website will explain terms such as foreign national and federal contractor, and require donors to enter a PIN to confirm they would like to make the contribution.

As mentioned, many believe that this service will give more citizens an opportunity to become involved in a world of campaign finance that seems to be dominated by Super PACs. The Hill continues:

Government watchdog groups also support the measure and see it as a way to make it easier for small donors to participate in the election process and compete with larger interests, as made possible by 2010’s Citizen’s United Supreme Court decision.

Nick Nyhart, president and CEO of Public Campaign, reacted positively following the ruling on Monday night.

“With billionaires and super-PACs drowning out the voices of hardworking Americans, text message campaign contributions can enhance the role of small donors and, combined with public matching funds, could provide a megaphone for the masses,” he said.

Public Campaign and nine other watchdog groups signed a letter in support of the measure, writing: “Small donors are a critical component of our democratic process, and technology can play a crucial role in helping to empower the voices of more Americans. More than 30 million Americans have texted a contribution to a charitable cause, and many people would likely text a donation to a political candidate if the practice is enabled [at the federal level].”

Former FEC chairman Michael Toner also chimed in on the development via Twitter:

Expect bursts of presidential txt msg contributions when VP choice is made,convention acceptance speech nights & during the 3 fall debates.

We believe that the decision by the FEC is a positive one in attempting to engage small donors into the process, which is a main motive behind skimmerhat as well. It will be interesting to follow how and to what extent this option for contributing to campaigns is used by citizens.

— Spencer

“Greeks voted on Sunday in an election that could decide...

Sun, 17 Jun 2012 08:06:21 -0400

“Greeks voted on Sunday in an election that could decide whether their heavily indebted country stays in the euro zone or heads for the exit, potentially unleashing shocks that could break up the single currency.” - Reuters, 6/17/12

As the above image — taken from a great scene in the movie Office Space — displays, when Americans begin to evaluate Congress they often come up with a simple question: “What do you do?”

Citizens expect results, and when progress is negated by the deafening noise of business as usual in Washington, they begin asking questions.

But we as Americans can push for better. Instead of asking questions, we can take action to ensure our voices are more accurately represented and, thus, we will not have to continuously sit down at a table to say, “Congress, what exactly do you do?”

— Spencer

“Egypt’s highest court declared the parliament invalid Thursday, and the country’s...

Thu, 14 Jun 2012 23:28:11 -0400

“Egypt’s highest court declared the parliament invalid Thursday, and the country’s interim military rulers promptly declared full legislative authority, triggering fresh chaos and confusion about the country’s leadership.” - CNN, 6/14/12

A major characteristic of skimmerhat is the concept of ideas, and using ideas to find and fund candidates who believe what you believe. Our hypothesis is that this caters to a large and growing group of issues-based voters — citizens who first want to characterize themselves based on their beliefs as individuals. And, still, even those who define themselves through party allegiance because ultimately their allegiance is defined by a set of ideas.

We also feel like looking at candidates through the lens of ideas and issues — and being educated on each — can begin to cut through the seething divisiveness that is present in today’s politics.

We may be correct. Or we may be totally off base.

But when gazing at the landscape, one thing is for sure — citizens are fed up with Congress (which is our concentration with skimmerhat). The lack of progress on a range of issues frustrates many Americans who feel their representatives are unable to accomplish the objectives that are expected of them, just as every citizen is expected to perform their individual job to a certain standard on a daily basis.

One organization that clearly displays this frustration is called No Labels. No Labels is:

A movement of Democrats, Republicans and independents dedicated to the politics of problem-solving.

Their description continues:

We stand united behind a simple proposition: we want our government to stop fighting and start fixing.

No Labels has set forth a dozen proposals to Congress under the campaign “Make Congress Work!” The first and most popular proposal/initiative is called “No Budget, No Pay” which is described in this way:

Congress rarely passes spending bills on time, which makes it virtually impossible for members to intelligently consider why they are spending taxpayer dollars in the first place. No Labels Solution: If Congress can’t make spending and budget decisions on time, they shouldn’t get paid on time either.

There are over 65 Congressional co-sponsors of the No Budget, No Pay legislation and No Labels as a whole has been rapidly growing with a healthy grassroots movement and social media following.

Organizations like No Labels helps citizens look at progress through a different lens; in their case, through non-partisanship.

At skimmerhat, we aren’t naive enough to think that people won’t congregate behind parties or factions or organizations. There will always be labels — after all, even when you search for a candidate within skimmerhat through a certain stance/side on an idea or issue, you are labeling or characterizing yourself in a certain way.

However, that doesn’t mean we don’t think there can be a better way to make sense of and push progress in a complicated, and some would say convoluted, political environment. It all starts with the collective power of individuals.

With No Labels, there are Americans who recognize this and are making their voices heard.

And with skimmerhat, we hope citizens will realize it as well, so their voices are more accurately represented in Washington.

— Spencer

“In an election here on Tuesday, residents of North Dakota...

Tue, 12 Jun 2012 08:55:00 -0400

“In an election here on Tuesday, residents of North Dakota will consider a measure that reaches far beyond any of that — one that abolishes the property tax entirely” - New York Times, 6/12/12

The above video link is one that connects to the live stream of the Personal Democracy Forum 2012 in New York City. The two-day event is described as “the world’s leading conference exploring and analyzing technology’s impact on politics and government” where “hundreds of individuals interested in how technology is changing politics, governance and society will gather.”

Yesterday was the first day of the event and some of the discussion was pretty fascinating; from Alexis Ohanian’s talk on the need for “heroes” to stand up for the rights of the Internet as was seen with SOPA to Jaron Lanier’s proposition that the middle class may suffer from the proliferation of networks that don’t take into account “micropayments” to the Sunlight Foundation introducing a pair of new tools — Scout and Call on Congress — to stay in touch with what is going on in Congress.

The list of attendees and speakers is impressive.

So listen in if you get a chance.

And here is an archive from some of the first day’s sessions.

— Spencer

“Standard & Poor’s said on Friday it expects...

Sat, 09 Jun 2012 09:28:00 -0400

“Standard & Poor’s said on Friday it expects U.S. lawmakers to set aside their differences to prevent a combination of tax hikes and spending cuts from hurting the economy in early 2013.” - Reuters, 6/9/12

The political cartoon above paints a provocative illustration of the fundraising tactics used by Congressmen across the country. And though the imagery is outlandish, it isn’t that off base in depicting the skewed reality we are seeing — our representatives are willing to hand over power, influence and results for the right amount.

Whether one agrees with the notion of Super PACs or not, nearly every American would affirm that the direction of our country is better placed in the hands of individual citizens, who as a collection can leverage their power. Influence and results ultimately rests with us.

— Spencer

“The expectations are so high for Fed Chairman Ben Bernanke Thursday to say something...

Wed, 06 Jun 2012 22:50:00 -0400

“The expectations are so high for Fed Chairman Ben Bernanke Thursday to say something revealing about more Fed easing that he can probably only disappoint markets.” - CNBC, 6/6/12

A week ago, we wrote about Congress and its wrestling match with the issue of bulk legislative data. Many open government activists were unhappy at the time as the U.S. House Committee on Appropriations released a report that essentially passed the responsibility for improving public access to legislative data to a non-public task force with no set reporting date.

However, there is an update, and it is positive.

A statement from House leaders on Wednesday went like this:

“The coming vote on the Legislative Branch appropriations bill marks an important milestone for the House of Representatives: the moment lawmakers agree to free legislative information from the technical limits of years past and embrace a more open, more transparent, and more effective way of doing the people’s business. Our goal is to provide bulk access to legislative information to the American people without further delay.

“The bill directs a task force to expedite the process of making public information available to the public. In addition to legislative branch agencies such as the Library of Congress and the Government Printing Office, the task force will include representatives of House leadership and key committees, as well as the Clerk of the House and the House Chief Administrative Officer.

“This is a big project. That’s why accomplishing it rapidly and responsibly requires all those with a role in the collection and dissemination of legislative information to be at the table together. Because this effort ranks among our top priorities in the 112th Congress, we will not wait for enactment of a Legislative Branch appropriations bill but will instead direct the task force to begin its important work immediately.

Positive, indeed.

The Sunlight Foundation and Daniel Schuman follow up on this development:

The debate over whether there should be bulk access to legislative data is over. Because bulk access is a top priority of the 112th Congress, we expect to see tangible progress in the upcoming months. The remaining questions largely concern how bulk access should be implemented to meet the needs of the public while respecting the legitimate concerns of Congress and its support agencies.

While we are disappointed that the task force will not include members of the public, we hope that the public will be consulted. After all, the American people are the intended end-users. Sunlight and our friends in the transparency community stand ready to be of assistance as the technical, policy, and scope issues are addressed.

While this is clearly progress, there’s still much more to do. We will be monitoring this issue closely.

Perhaps the most important line from this excerpt is the last one, which touches on remaining steadfast. Verbal progress is good, but consistent, tangible steps forward will prove that Congress is true in its initiative about creating transparency.

Kudos to everyone who works tirelessly in this space and pushes for advancement. Let’s see where it goes from here.

— Spencer

On Fear & Common Sense

Mon, 04 Jun 2012 23:42:00 -0400

“Partisanship in America is at a 25-year high, according to a new Pew Research Center survey, with the majority of that movement to the two ideological extremes coming in just the last decade.” - Washington Post, 6/4/12

A quote we really like at skimmerhat is: “If we’re going to win our never ending war against the idea of being afraid, there are going to be casualties, including common sense.”

It can be applied to various aspects of one’s life — from talking to the pretty girl across the room to taking a new direction that breaks up the status quo.

The quote speaks to us on a couple levels. First, on beginning a business venture, something none of the current founders have ever done from scratch. It’s an adventure. And second, on beginning a business venture in a space as volatile and divisive as government and politics (we’ve written on a similar topic here).

Perhaps, the second point has never been more true than now. The excerpt from the Washington Post in italics at the top of this post displays as much. The article delves into the partisanship that seems to be taking a stranglehold on progress, especially in Congress.

They write:

What’s even more remarkable than that rapid growth in partisanship is the fact that there has been almost no noticeable change in other major demographic categories on Pew’s values question. White/black, men/women, religious/not religious — no matter where you fall in these demographic categories the difference between how you and your opposite broadly conceptualize values has not changed markedly since Pew started polling on this in 1987.

The partisanship that has been created has many layers and just as many reasons one could point to in how or why it has grown over the years — whether it’s the politicians, the citizens, the money, the media or a combination of everything.

But that isn’t a discussion for this blog post. The problem is staring us in the face — dissension and gridlock. The proper discussion is what will we do from here?

As Americans, we can’t be afraid to get our hands dirty and attempt something different. Fear of what could happen leads to acceptance of the present; it is the most efficient way to stifle change and progress.

We also must go ahead and throw common sense to the wind. A vision for the future requires us to loosen our grip on the world as it is now because if we are going to realize a different state, it isn’t going to make much sense to any of us at this point in time. Any great advancement in the history of the world seemed inconceivable to a group of people at one time.

This applies to our government and its politics. If Americans are to create the country we collectively think we can, we must be unafraid and accept the casualties, including common sense.

It will undoubtedly require a good bit of time and a solid dose of mental compromise as well.

At skimmerhat, we believe the sharing and discussion of ideas are at the core of this advancement, not party dogma or political rhetoric. Which is why we are building a platform dedicated to finding and funding candidates who share your ideas — the citizens and individuals who make our country what it is.

With this, we are cooking up a new primary feature for the site when we go live. It’s one that hasn’t been included in any of our videos or posts yet, but it embraces the concept of ideas. We will have more updates on this in the very near future, so please stick with us.

And as always, if you are interested in following skimmerhat, take a look at any of our social media links on the sidebar to the right or sign up on our email list.

— Spencer

“Feeble hiring by U.S. employers in May roiled markets and...

Sat, 02 Jun 2012 07:47:00 -0400

“Feeble hiring by U.S. employers in May roiled markets and dimmed the already-cloudy outlook for an economy that appears to be following Europe and Asia into a slowdown.” - Wall Street Journal, 6/2/12

Has this become the modern campaign platform? In many ways, yes; when you consider how much money is funneled by PACs and Super PACs by a limited number of people and the success rate of candidates who raise more money than their competitors.

But why can’t individuals and small donors collectively disrupt this evolution of the modern campaign platform? We think they can.

— Spencer

Congress Wrestles with Legislative Transparency

Wed, 30 May 2012 20:45:00 -0400

“Stocks tumbled on Wednesday as surging bond yields in Spain and Italy ratcheted up tensions in financial markets about Europe’s ability to solve its growing debt crisis.” - Reuters, 5/30/12

Congress takes quite a bit of public flack, especially considering their record low approval ratings and all.

Perhaps it is not always deserved (debatable by many), but there are events when one can’t help but heap blame on our representatives in D.C.

One such case will likely rear its head on Thursday, May 31 when the U.S. House Committee on Appropriations is scheduled for a full vote on the Legislative Branch Appropriations Bill for 2013, outlining spending on legislation.

Many have hoped the bill would address the longstanding issue of improving public access to legislative information in forms that are easily consumed and accurately distributed in the digital space. Well, in a draft report, the committee does address the problem, but not in the most forward thinking way.

A number of respected open government advocates have chimed in on this, so we will let them explain further.

Daniel Schuman and Eric Mill of the Sunlight Foundation write (definitely recommend reading this link in its entirety):

Appropriators misunderstand how data can be “authenticated,” and kick responsibility for improving public access to legislative data to a non-public task force with no set reporting date. Unless corrected, this draft report represents a tremendous step backward for transparency, and fails to seriously grapple with the history of efforts to free legislative information for widespread public use.

Meanwhile, Waldo Jaquith, who created ethics.gov, gives his thoughts:

This is bullshit. Either that or congress is relying on advisors who are simultaneously very smart and very stupid. What congress fears here is actually none of these things, but instead they are afraid of the fact that it is 2012. By not providing bulk downloads of legislation, they’re requiring that Josh Tabuerer keep scraping its text off their website to post at GovTrack.us, from which all of other other open congress websites get their text. If Josh wants to verify that the version of a bill that he has is accurate, he’s out of luck. There’s no master copy. For all technical purposes, congress is silent on what their bills say. (I have this same problem with Virginia legislation on Richmond Sunlight.) For Appropriations to argue that releasing legislation as XML presents potential problems with the accuracy of the circulated text is to pretend that a) there’s already a healthy ecosystem of unauthorized bulk congressional legislative data and b) that their failure to participate in that ecosystem is the source of any accuracy problems, and that by providing data themselves, then it becomes technologically trivial to verify the accuracy of a copy of a bill.

This is a real embarrassment, both to congress and to the United States. I’ve got a bit of experience in the federal data realm, and I can tell you that in the realm of open data, compared to the White House, Congress is trapped in the stone age. Now we see that they intend to stay there.

As Jaquith points out, people are already editing legislative data and many of these people want bulk data from Congress to ensure absolute accuracy, rather than tampering.

It’s not about control, it’s about transparency and providing correct data for citizens.

Finally, David Moore of OpenCongress lets us know who we should contact with our concerns:

Primary point of contact here should be office of Rep. Ander Crenshaw [R, FL-04] – 202-225-2501 - on behalf of the intentionally, insistently closed-off Legislative Branch Subcommittee of House Cmte. on Appropriations. Give them a ring and let them know that even if you’re not a constituent, you demand bulk access to public legislative information – literally the data that shapes the laws of the land & our shared, lived public policies – and that they’re unforgivably standing in the way of progress on basic government transparency. If anyone from Rep. Crenshaw’s staff or office is reading this, give me a ping on Skype at davidmooreppf to chat voice or video chat, and I’ll politely reiterate the extensive testimony submitted by OC & GovTrack & Sunlight & others on behalf of the millions of people who want access to public data in real-time. Rep. Crenshaw profile on OC; office phone: 202-225-2501.

This is obviously an ongoing issue, but one that is of vital importance to creating a more transparent and accountable government.

Congress appears poised to turn its nose up to this cause. In which case, citizens should be poised to take collective action.

— Spencer

“The US’s top military officer has warned Syria it...

Mon, 28 May 2012 20:00:00 -0400

“The US’s top military officer has warned Syria it could face armed intervention as international outrage grows over the massacre of women and children by tanks and artillery in Houla.” - Guardian, 5/28/12

On Memorial Day, we are humbled by the heroes and their families who have given everything for our country. Our gratitude is endless, and we continue to lend our thoughts to the troops who fight for our freedom.

The above picture was taken by Todd Heisler for the Rocky Mountain News feature called “Jim Comes Home” in 2005. The article was written by Jim Sheeler and it won a Pulitzer Prize. It was about about a Marine major who helps the families of comrades killed in Iraq cope with their loss and honor their sacrifice. The above photo shows Katherine Cathey the night before the burial of her husband — Second Lt. Jim Cathey of the Marines, who lost his life in Iraq. She refused to leave the coffin, asking to sleep next to his body for the last time. The Marines made a bed for her. Also, note the Marine standing guard behind her.

— Spencer

“Two raging wildfires in southwest New Mexico merged on...

Fri, 25 May 2012 06:51:00 -0400

“Two raging wildfires in southwest New Mexico merged on Thursday to become the biggest blaze among fires that have torched forest and brush in parts of five Southwestern states.” - Reuters, 5/25/12

The above cartoon displays how many citizens view Congress — we ask questions and we get little in response.

It’s troubling and it’s why Congressional approval ratings have been hovering at historic lows over the past year.

But as citizens, we don’t have to continue to ask questions. We can take action, and when we collectively apply that power, we will begin to receive more than silence and gridlock. That’s why at skimmerhat, we believe in education and action.

Check out some of the other political cartoons and memes we have gathered here.

— Spencer

“The Financial Industry Regulatory Authority’s chairman said on Tuesday that regulators...

Tue, 22 May 2012 21:19:00 -0400

“The Financial Industry Regulatory Authority’s chairman said on Tuesday that regulators plan to review allegations that Morgan Stanley shared negative news before Facebook’s initial public offering with institutional investors.” - CNBC, 5/22/12

We’ve posted a good bit about open government and the movement behind it over the last few months.

But, the meaning of open government can get buried in the push forward, particularly when you begin talking about open data and other initiatives that can muddy exactly what open government is supposed to do. A clear direction and purpose is vital for open government to provide substantial and tangible returns, rather than become rhetoric.

Nathaniel Heller — a co-founder of Global Integrity — tackled this topic very well on his blog:

At its core, “open government” to me means three things:

Information Transparency: that the public understands the workings of their government;

Public engagement: that the public can influence the workings of their government by engaging in governmental policy processes and service delivery programs; and

Accountability: that the public can hold the government to account for its policy and service delivery performance.

Into those three buckets we can then deposit many of the “open government” initiatives, programs, and interventions that are often invoked on their own as “open government.” What’s most important here, to me, is that none of these initiatives or interventions in and of themselves constitute “open government” alone. Rather, only when combined with the others do we truly see the potential for “open government” in its most powerful and holistic form.

Bucket 1 (Information Transparency): freedom of information initiatives; open data and Big [Public] Data efforts, including open data portals; procurement, budget, and policy transparency (e.g. voting records, meeting minutes, political finance transparency).

Bucket 2 (Public Engagement): e-government services; open311 and service delivery feedback loops; stakeholder fora and participatory processes (e.g. participatory budgeting, town hall meetings, both online and offline); electoral processes.

Bucket 3 (Accountability): anti-corruption mechanisms (e.g. auditing, ombudsmen); conflicts of interest and influence peddling safeguards.

It goes without saying that the world does not fit neatly into this clean paradigm. Electoral processes are as much a form of accountability as a form of engagement, and the distinction between information transparency and engagement blurs quickly when we talk about something like open311. But hopefully the general construct holds some water.

As for technology? I view technology agnostically in the context of “open government.” Some of the above interventions don’t work without technology — think open data, open311, or e-government services. Others work quite well without websites or apps. Technology can certainly be a powerful force multiplier in the context of open government, and it can take interventions to scale rapidly. But technology is neither open government itself nor required for open government to necessarily take hold, in my view.

We tend to agree with Nathaniel’s outline. As he intelligently points out, the world rarely fits perfectly within a clean set of parameters and technology is not always vital; however, reminding ourselves of the constructs of open government will only help in moving it forward with meaning and results.

- Spencer

What to Take from Americans Elect

Sun, 20 May 2012 08:58:00 -0400

“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...

Thu, 17 May 2012 07:06:00 -0400

“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...

Mon, 14 May 2012 20:04:00 -0400

“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...

Sat, 12 May 2012 06:19:00 -0400

“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,...

Wed, 09 May 2012 08:57:00 -0400

“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