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