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.
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
Individual
PAC
Party
