Kristie's Adventures in Running for Congress in the Wild West: A Rescinded Invitation to Speak, $100K Requirement

A Rescinded Invitation to Speak, $100K Requirement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