Willravel

Writing to a Senator may give one the impression of having done something, but I'm not convinced it does anything other than fill up an email account somewhere or waste about 7 seconds of some junior aid's time. I've been writing senators, governors, and congresspeople for years, and I'm pretty sure it was wasted effort on my part. Perhaps I was just a bit naive.

Just today I read that my very own Senator Feinstein claimed of the Patriot Act extensions, "They expire in three weeks and I think there’s no time really to go into the changes." Needless to say, this is the kind of thing that makes my liberal blood boil. Sending an email won't convince Senator Feinstein to read the act before voting, though, so I thought of another way to get the attention of politicians: endangering campaign contributions. For Feinstein, the five major corporate donors are PG&E, DeBartolo Dev., Vivendi, Disney, and Time Warner. That's an energy corporation, three media corporations, and a real estate corporation, who's donations total about $236,000 from 2005-2010.

Could something be done to affect these sources of money, which could put pressure on Feinstein? Do you think this is a reasonable measure to ensure that you are being represented? Or do you think this is underhanded and undemocratic?

I'd honestly like to know your opinions.

Baraka_Guru

Not sure what to make of it, but I thought of this:
Omar Ahmad: Political change with pen and paper | Video on TED.com

Have you seen it? Have you tried it this way?

__________________
Knowing that death is certain and that the time of death is uncertain, what's the most important thing?
—Bhikkhuni Pema Chödrön

Humankind cannot bear very much reality.
—From "Burnt Norton," Four Quartets (1936), T. S. Eliot

dc_dux

You're probably right about being naive that letters and e-mails make a difference.

I worked as a junior staffer for a Senator and letters from individuals about policy issues had little impact.

To impact policy, you, as an individual, need to be part of a larger coalition in the community/district/state that your elected representative cant ignore...i.e. a meaningful voting block.

When I was a lobbyist for a public interest group (after the Senate stint), we were able to compete with the big donors by organizing local coalitions. In our particularly case, the base of the coalition were mayors and county executive in the district...we also reached out to other community leaders (working with other groups), depending on the issue. We organized them, gave them talking points and they made phone calls or visits to the Senator (or at least a top staff person).

We didnt win as much as we would have liked, but we were heard.

As an individual, what you should expect and demand from your elected representatives are responsive constituent services...when you have problems with the federal government or federal programs, they should absolutely be there to help.

__________________
"The perfect is the enemy of the good."
~ Voltaire

Willravel

I'd not seen that. You'll have to forgive me, but that claim is really stretching my open mindedness. Handwriting a letter once a month, sending a photocopy, and signing your name with some position of importance... works? I suppose that could work for a mayor of a smaller town, but a congressperson or senator?

I'll give it a shot for a few months. If nothing else, this will be an opportunity to resurrect my ability to write in cursive, something I've not done in a good 10 years excluding my signature.

---------- Post added at 09:15 PM ---------- Previous post was at 09:06 PM ----------

I feel fairly powerless after reading this. You lobbied on behalf of a public interest group which featured mayors, and even you ended up having difficulties?

dc_dux

We didnt wine and dine or have big budgets but were fairly successful when it came to issues where we could demonstrate a direct impact...housing/community development, public safety, transportation....by getting the key players involved.

Not as successful in broader issues of national interest, even those with local implications, like environmental polities or tax policies. We would have had no impact on policies like the Patriot Act.

The system is what it is....too big for any one individual to make a difference.

IMO, the only way to change it would be to take the money out of politics...not any easy thing to do, but I would start with total public funding for all congressional elections.

__________________
"The perfect is the enemy of the good."
~ Voltaire

Willravel

This is the problem I'm starting with. Things seem just too big in this district of 300 million folks for individuals to affect the system. I'm not willing to accept that there's no solution.

BTW, I'm using affect for the first time in my life in a situation where I'm pretty sure I've used it correctly. It's a big day for me. I'm pretty sure I used accept wrong.

bagatelle

Several years ago I emailed a congressman about the local road improvements, they had planned in the area. I wished they would also build an underpass for lighter traffic in one busy junction. He replied (or his assistant). I don't remember the contents anymore, but for years after I received Christmas cards from his office.

My letter made no difference, the plans they had, had been there for decades and the underpass was not part of those plans. His interest in replying was to keep possible voters happy.

We are much smaller country and one congressman can sometimes make a difference locally, if he is contacted by people with enough enthusiasm. I believe politician can be motivated by getting more publicity, future elections in mind.

Politicians get easily accused of misusing public funds. People and media here are interested even in pile of boards, that appear in Prime Minister's private yard, wanting to know, whether he paid them from his own purse or not.

Surely it's easier to get their attention, if you are able to organize things well in order to have the politician come over. Media is constantly interested in any signs of bribery though, politicians need to be pretty wary, their fundings aren't harmfully linked to their own finances.

__________________

ASU2003

The only real way is to run against them.

Even if you know you have no shot at winning, if you can get the message out there in front of the voters, the candidates would have to come up with a stance on the issue.

Willravel

That's a good idea, ASU.

Cimarron29414

I can see the posters now:

"Willravel For President - My Condescension is really Irony. You are just too stupid to realize it."

__________________
Gives a man a halo, does mead.

"Here lies The_Jazz: Killed by an ambitious, sparkly, pink butterfly."

samcol

It's apparent that letters and such won't do much. My two suggestions aren't really anything you could do on a personal level, but have more to do with the way things used to be in our government.

1. States rights. Things that aren't expressly authorized by the federal government should be left to the states. This would allow issues to become more localized where it's easier to affect change. IE it's easier to persuade the school board or city council than it is the US congress. If it can be handled locally then, why not? I know the Patriot Act does indeed fall under federal jurisdiction, but there are many things the US Congress has it's hands on that it has no business legislating on.

2. State governments appointing US senators. As it stands now a Senators constituency is literally millions and millions of people in most cases. Letters, calls and the like are really, really pointless. I'd rather have the Senators act as ambassadors for each individual state government like was originally intended. The state governments would be able to keep a closer rein on Senators than the people of the state.

__________________
It's time for the president to hand over his nobel peace prize.

ASU2003

I think it might make the state government a little more important than they are now. There are only two things that I think would need to change. Senators could only serve one 6 year term or two 4 year ones.

And I would think that people would have to be able to move or choose to be residents of other states much easier.

I would also be worried about states doing something that would cause problems in the next state over....

samcol

Well, the patriot act extension did not pass the house yesterday. Called my republican congressman to tell him to vote against it but he didn't.

It seems the vote came down to this freshman class of Republican congressmen who didn't vote down party lines.

A small temporary victory for freedom, but I'll take it.

__________________
It's time for the president to hand over his nobel peace prize.

Derwood

Shit like the Patriot Act is something that the new Tea Party congressmen will (hopefully) help out with

__________________
"You can't shoot a country until it becomes a democracy." - Willravel

YaWhateva

I thought they were trying to work a loophole to put it back to a vote tomorrow this time only requiring a majority vote rather than the usual requirement?

__________________
“If the Americans go in and overthrow Saddam Hussein and it's clean, he has nothing, I will apologize to the nation, and I will not trust the Bush administration again.” - Bill O'Reilly

"This is my United States of Whateva!"

Marvelous Marv

I occasionally write a company and tell them that I will no longer be using their product, because of their support of x. I also make it a point never to pay for music or movies that reward performers who encourage the picking of my pocket. And I distribute their work freely as much as possible.

They certainly encourage the redistribution of MY money/work.

__________________
"The problem with socialism is that you eventually run out of other people's money."
Margaret Thatcher