Kristie's Adventures in Running for Congress in the Wild West

Sunday, May 25, 2014

"They're Coming for You."

I have very little time to write anything- but wanted to do a quick update. Some days it feels like this at debates and events where many or most of us are present, especially on the surface.

We are the World (Michael Jackson)

And others, it is clearly more of this:

Tuesday, May 13, 2014

Which Came First? Or Am I Just Chicken?

All of this Running for Congress business has caused some personal existential crisis, but perhaps I ended up in this position due to a crisis related to teaching. Apathy is alarming to someone who is attempting to educate social workers to go into the world and make a difference where it is most needed. I empathize with my students when it comes to these feelings, especially when related to significant changes being made through politics. Helping others in a one -on- one (micro) way is often more satisfying and tangible than tackling systemic issues that affect our clients.

When responding to a friend’s question on Facebook about how I felt about a debate, I responded unthinkingly with, “You just survive these things. How will you fix (?): Some awful world issue___. 15-30 seconds- BANG (now answer without sounding foolish, offensive, true & like-able)...hot lights, 5 cameras, and a counter bell DING! Time to stop...then there's the characters in the panel ;-) it’s the most unnatural thing in world.”

TY Debate May 10, 2014

After reading it later, I couldn’t figure out why anyone would want to subject themselves to such a thing on purpose. I’m pretty sure I’ll never “know enough” to feel solid answering everything and anything in this way on subjects that cover instability in the world, the question of evil, war, and how we should or should not legislate American morality.

What worries me more is that after a certain amount of time, many feel fine making statements about such things, and feel assured of their correct position. I grow more unsure, more questioning as I move along. I find myself stumped on certain topics, but the one thing I’ve realized is that the more money that is involved in any of these topics- including politics and education, the more one is expected to conform and comply.

I sent a group text to my best girlfriends to check myself by saying “out loud” to women that know me and love me regardless of where I work, who I work for or where I live while I do it. One reminded me that I have been feeling this way for a while, before running for Congress, and although I love my students and teaching- there has been something hollow about it for a while that is difficult to pinpoint. Maybe some of it is is related to being rated on performance rather than substance (professors are now generally subjected to anonymous Amazon type reviews every 6 weeks).

In general, it seems as though more weight is given to what you say or print, rather than how you think, question, or problem solve. You must worry about properly editing yourself (and projecting this online), and be careful to not question those that are more powerful than you are, because it could harm your cause down the road. We are expected to “put it all out there” but make sure it’s nice and tidy and in a style that appeals to the most people possible. That way the messaging is clear.

Wednesday, May 7, 2014

Congressional Forum, "Top 7"

Ted Lieu, Kristie Holmes and Marianne Williamson

Last night's Top 7 Candidate Forum focused on many issues- but my focus was on the money in politics, regardless of where it comes from. The amount of money fed into the mailers and television time disrupt the balance for voters. Those who can spend more can drown out the voices of those who can't. I hope to see more voters show up in the primary and take a look at all candidates. As fellow candidate Barbara Mulvaney stated last night, "Check their price tags." In 2014, most of us have access to a lot of information about each candidate online. And it's likely you will be taking that tool with you into the voting booth.

Money campaigns rely on the fact that you are more likely to vote on name recognition alone. This should make you pause before you click on a candidates name. Do you really want to vote for someone based on the fact that you saw their name stapled on a light pole every day on your way to work?

*Thank you to the Americans for Democratic Action and Venice Action Alliance for basing candidate choices on metrics outside of fundraising.*

Monday, April 28, 2014

Brentwood News Shows How it’s Done: We Can Be Democratic and Handle a 17 Candidate Forum

Brentwood News Congressional Candidate Forum

The Congressional Forum for District 33 was a beautiful sight to behold. The University Synagogue hosted, and were gracious and fair with all of the candidates.

All rounds were in random order, and kept to a very strict time- with a bell. If the bell went off, you simply needed to “sit down”. Somewhere around halfway, they had us do musical chairs, so that no one spent the whole time up front.

What seemed to be an unusual level of camaraderie ensued, with candidates who had never met before laughing, joking and teasing as the two-hour program sped forward at an amazing pace. I think we all realized how 30 seconds to 3 minutes to speak was all anyone really wanted or needed to hear from candidates, no matter who they were, or what they were talking about.

It was astounding to hear the level of qualifications among candidates. If you can’t find someone in this group of 17 to support, then you aren’t reading about them. It may seem strange that as a candidate, I’m promoting everyone. The way the media reports on candidates is unfair- one story this morning had large photos of 6 candidates, and they were, of course the ones who had raised more than $350,000.

This was on the heels of an LA Times story with the ironic headline, “Fundraising May Narrow Field for Henry Waxman’s Seat” (you think?). I’m working on a comparison chart to see how other factors range amongst candidates. After this forum I am betting that many have qualifications that surpass money as a sole qualifying factor.

Many audience members made it clear to me how frustrated they were after the forum after hearing so many “clearly wonderful” candidates that are available- and that they don’t hear about them due to bias at forums (keeping many out), media attention on money only, and the affordability of mailers (needing a million dollars to send campaign materials to voters in the off- chance the slick mailer makes it past the trash can into the house to be read by voters). And of course, since this is District 33, there were many comments about the environmental ramifications of such waste and abuse of our environment (trees, chemicals, ink, trash, sustainability).

Laughter wasn't unusual at this forum

The bipartisan, unifying theme by most candidates was the corruption that is rife in our institution of elected officials, especially now with multiple indictments in the California senate, and a new indictment of a Congressman this week. This system of begging for money creates a breeding ground for ethical violations and illegal activity that is often overlooked. Then everyone steps back at gasps at the public servant “bad behavior”.

Be brave, vote in the primary and use your free tool to decide: Google.

You can follow Kristie at @DrKristie or on Facebook at http://www.facebook.com/KristieforCongress

Tuesday, April 22, 2014

Why are We Calling this a Race?

Why are We Calling This a Race?

To raise money for a political campaign (Federal) you must have an FEC number. (Federal Election Commission, to track money). Unless you are already a politician, you don’t have one. Mine arrived on April 15^th in the evening mail- 16 days after the first quarter reports were due. So if this “race” is about fundraising, I was grounded on the sidelines. It took more than three weeks to receive my “number” after the second form (signed by the treasurer) was mailed in.

It would be helpful if voters knew that this candidate did not raise money in this quarter (and the only one to report before the election) because they were not allowed to.

Yay for everyone who already had one- and was able to raise half a million dollars- or a million dollars in the time I had to wait. Instead, these first quarter reports generated a glut of articles that discussed the "frontrunners" in terms that had absolutely nothing to do with the job we are all running for. Just money that some were allowed to raise, while others were not- with different start times. With absolutely no one mentioning this fact.

I read about FEC grace periods and extensions when feeling the pressure and the questions, but when I called the FEC, they were kind, pointing out the fact that it had to be snail mailed, and “you want to make sure we actually got it.” I’ve had enough experience with things not making it to their destination on more than one occasion. This wasn’t the time to take a gamble just to hear, “I’m sorry, we haven’t received your forms.”

When I was asked earlier today about our “cash on hand” by yet another Democratic Forum leader, after they were unable to find my first quarter FEC reports, I responded:

It's no good fundraising when you don't have an FEC (number)...you can go to prison rather than Congress…

I haven't had a response to that email yet.

In watching other races as well as my own, I have begun wondering,

What type of race:

1.     Has participants playing by different rules, that change as they go?

2.  Allows people to lend their own money to themselves to count as “fundraising”. Yay for me, I have one million dollars I can put in my own campaign account (but truly, I would prefer this to owing favors in that price range)!

3.  Counts money as “raised” regardless of debt coming in to race from previous campaigns? (Yes I realize that people argue about this online-who really has the most “cash on hand.”)

4.    Focuses on money in any account rather than the actual candidate and their ability to make an impact in a completely dysfunctional Congress if they are elected?

It frightens me to think that voters take money as a sign that a Candidate is trustworthy because they attract money. (They very well may be, but what other measures are we using?). We should be careful and wonder why someone attracts so much money. Do we think that being "well connected" is a good thing? What type of experience do we think is necessary? What moderates their speech?

Race (defined)

1. A competition between runners, horses, vehicles, boats, etc., to see which is the fastest in covering a set course.

2. To move or progress swiftly or at full speed.

If you love this photo as much as I do- there are more where they came from here:
http://instagram.com/mauiwawie

You can follow Kristie at @DrKristie or on Facebook
at http://www.facebook.com/KristieforCongress

Sunday, April 13, 2014

A Rescinded Invitation to Speak, $100K Requirement

A Rescinded Invitation to Speak, $100K Requirement

I’ve had a difficult time trying to write another blog post with my experiences of the past few weeks. After each event, I feel compelled to share what happened there, things said and learned, but have realized that they are too specific to certain people, organizers and the like.

There is an event I will not be attending today, as they have instituted a fundraising requirement at the last minute. Apparently, I can’t afford to speak at a candidate forum.

I was enthusiastically invited by the organizers after my first time speaking publically as a candidate, and was then contacted for photos for a flyer to be mailed out. I was again contacted for a higher resolution photo, which I supplied. There were a few phone conversations and follow up involved where my attendance was confirmed. Later, I received an email followed up by a phone call stating that they were very sorry, but that the only candidates who could speak at the candidate forum/ debate would have need to have raised at least 100K by that time. I’m not sure how we were to “prove” that we have such funds, a bank receipt perhaps? That part was not explained. I must conclude that they made the assumption I had not, as I didn’t receive further information or candidate instructions and they now only have three “featured” candidates at their forum scheduled for today.

Rules in Raising Political Cash

I questioned the fairness of this “rule”, given the fact that at the time of the call, there would have been no way to raise this sort of money legally given the short window between Henry Waxman’s announcement and the invitation. For those unfamiliar, you have to assemble a team, recruit a treasurer who is capable and willing to take the risk of taking responsibility for your campaign (you can’t be your own treasurer) and apply for an FEC number (Federal Election Commission) which is required once the trigger of $5,000 has happened, sort of like a social security number in which you are tracked and need to make reports. The treasurer must sign the FEC application as well.

Essentially, only “establishment” politicians or those who were already campaigning would have this set up in time, and answers are not always as straightforward as they seem. Applications for endorsements are often tied to money, in which you fill out yet another application.

You need to physically mail in hard copy forms via the postal service, and wait for your assigned number. Unless you are in a political field of work, you are not born with this knowledge and it takes some reading and investigating, similar to my experience in trying to file in the first place. Perhaps a candidate has a long line of wealthy, waiting funders ready to go when they announce (due to fame or personal fortune), and knows someone who can plow through all of the bureaucratic hoops in a day or two, but I am guessing that would also require quite a bit of funding in order to pay for this help. One still has to mail hard copy forms and wait.

You can look up candidate fundraising reports online, which are filed quarterly, but the last deadline was in March, so the “new” candidates will have no, or little money in those accounts unless they are in a situation already noted above. The next deadline isn’t until after the Primary election, so it is hard to make an adequate assessment of candidates based on such metrics. It disturbs me to be discussing this in the first place.

I have professional research experience, fine print and red tape know- how, having had to endure several mortgages, working for the county of Los Angeles (5 years), and have applied for a SAMHSA (government grant) and other such things, so forms and formality are not the issue.

Finance Rules Confusing, Misstep Can Ruin Candidacy

How many times have we seen in the news cycle candidates or elected officials being publically chastised for “not knowing” what their money was tied to? No matter who is doing this research, it takes time. Are you willing to be beholden to multiple organizations that have “supported” you? One does not want to make a mistake with these types of dollar amounts. Candidates should be vetting donors as much as they are apparently vetting you. When you rush into taking money from the first people that offer (I’m not talking about smaller donations from family or friends) but those that are offering significant cash for your campaign, you are taking a risk. What are you agreeing to by taking their money? They may tell you one thing when they approach you, and you find out the “other” things they also support later on. Or what they expect of you once elected.

Equality in Voter Access

Part of voting freedom for Americans should be to hear equally from all candidates qualified for office by the Secretary of State and will be on the ballot at voting time. Not just the ones who are well funded because they are “already” politicians or have celebrity status. All candidates should be on the sample ballot that is mailed out, if they are qualified, not just the ones who can afford the additional $17,200 (or more) with their filing fee.

This was not the only organization to ask about money raised in order to assign eligibility. Two organizations that endorse also contacted me, asking similar questions for “viability” reasons, and they wanted specific numbers. In the cases of Political Party events, all candidates in the party should be invited, as they are qualified members. According to the Democratic Party website, “America works when everyone plays by the same rules.” Does this not apply to candidate forums and coverage?

Update: LA Times Article this morning stated:

"Club officials said they believed the forum would be more helpful to members if it included only the most viable contenders in their party. They did not want to dilute the two-hour session by spreading it too thinly over a large field that included some with little or no chance of winning the seat that Waxman has held for four decades.
Those who met the club's criterion -- demonstrating that they had at least $200,000 in their campaign coffers by April 8 -- were Lieu, former Los Angeles city controller and councilwoman Wendy Greuel, journalist and radio talk show host Matt Miller and defense attorney David Kanuth."

However, as of this morning, the FEC database shows exactly $0 in all Democratic Candidate accounts. If the above four candidates "demonstrated" that they had such funds, they were asked by club officials, and were given opportunity to "demonstrate" it through unofficial means. Essentially, only two candidates were dis-invited from this event (Barbara Mulvaney and Kristie Holmes) without asking to "demonstrate" funds. There are two other candidates officially in the race but have not been participating in forum events that I know of.

You can follow Kristie at @DrKristie or on Facebook at http://www.facebook.com/KristieforCongress

House Candidates -- CA District : 33 As of 1pm April 14, 2014 Pacific Standard Time

Select 2 ~ 4 candidates to