With Reference to Lessig's Status as a Member of the Board of Advisors of Americans Elect and His Activism on Behalf of the Americans Elect Candidacy of Buddy Roemer
Rick Hasen called my essay "The Shadow Super PAC of 'Centrism'" a "must-read...on the continued internal democracy deficit at Americans Elect, and the serial violation of a neutrality pledge by Americans Elect’s leadership."
I have enormous respect for your body of work — especially for your work on open culture and on the issue of money in politics.
But I do have to ask you how, as a member of the Board of Advisors of Americans Elect, you continue to square your activism on behalf of the Americans Elect candidacy of Buddy Roemer — most memorably, in your treatise "One Way Forward"; in your appearances on "Morning Joe" (videos here and here); in your tweets; and in your recent Atlantic pieces (here and, today, here) — with the Americans Elect corporation's explicit policy on neutrality.
According to Section 10.0 of the Rules (pdf link) of Americans Elect (emphasis mine):
Until the Americans Elect ticket has been selected by majority vote of participating Delegates in the Nominating Round of voting, Americans Elect shall be neutral with respect to all Candidates and shall not endorse, oppose, advance, or advocate any particular Candidate.
You've highlighted the fact that your position as a member of the Board of Advisors of Americans Elect is "noncompensated" — but this, it seems to me, misses the point.
Surely, the straightforward, commonsense reading is that Rule 10 is a broad mandate — that the "Americans Elect" of the phrase "Americans Elect shall be neutral" includes both
1 the organization as a whole (as reflected in official decisions of the Board of Directors and the Board's committees)
and
2 the statements and actions of individual directors, executive staff and advisors of Americans Elect, i.e., those who — whether paid or unpaid — are officially and publicly signified by Americans Elect as supporters and representatives the organization.
Of course, one could argue that, no, Rule 10 applies only to (1); that directors and officers are bound by Sections 4.12 and 6.1 of the Bylaws (pdf link); and that advisors can say whatever they want.
But this seems more than a little Clintonian, as well as being a clear violation of the spirit, if not necessarily the letter, of Rule 10 — not least, because it implies (and creates) a loophole through which the Americans Elect corporation and its individual directors and officers can, by not expressing themselves directly, abide by the letter of the neutrality policy stated in the corporation's Rules and Bylaws, even as they violate the spirit of the policy by allowing and enabling various Americans Elect advisors to function as surrogates for expressing either the type of candidate or the specific candidate that they — i.e., the corporation, or specific directors or officers or, for that matter, seed funders — prefer.
To be clear: I have no way of knowing whether you are speaking for anyone else at Americans Elect, in advocating for Buddy Roemer (and, of late — albeit more softly — for David Walker).
Absent being shown any evidence to the contrary, I assume that you are speaking only for yourself.
:: :: ::
The truth is, Americans Elect seems never to have enforced its neutrality policy — and it certainly isn't going to start enforcing it now, desperate as it is for a candidate.
But that doesn't make your own position as an Americans Elect advisor campaigning for a specific candidate any less ethically compromised.
If you or other Americans Elect advisors — or, for that matter, Americans Elect directors or executive staff members — wish to campaign for specific Americans Elect candidates, in the way that you have for Buddy Roemer (and David Walker), you are more than free to do so.
But if you are going to engage in this activity while the Americans Elect neutrality policy embodied in Rule 10 and in Bylaws 4.12 and 6.1 remains in place, you should step down from Americans Elect.
You can't have your cake and eat it too.
The other, and even more honest, option is for Americans Elect simply to go ahead and kill its neutrality policy — which, in any case, has been a farce all along.
:: :: ::
Although I'd be gratified by a personal response to this query, the most useful place for you to address it would be on your public blog.
You can find a more comprehensive and integrated presentation — a "one-stop shop," if you like — of my own thoughts on this and other issues related to Americans Elect, in "The Super Shadow PAC of 'Centrism,'" the essay I link above.
I look forward to your response.
With respect,
JOHN LUMEA
UPDATE: Lessig's response and my follow-up is here.
In its launch press release of 23 April, the Committee to Get Walker Running — a.k.a. Draft Walker — billed itself as a
grassroots and youth-driven initiative to get our country’s fiscal house in order by drafting David Walker...as an independent candidate for president through Americans Elect.
A "grassroots and youth-driven initiative."
To be sure, the Committee is managed by Nick Troiano, who just last month stepped down from a 2-year stint as National Campus Director at Americans Elect, and who — at 22 — is himself barely a year out of Georgetown University.
And yet, the Committee — which is registered as a PAC with the FEC (pdf link) — claims to have conducted an April 2012 public opinion survey of 966 Florida registered voters, to gauge support for a David Walker candidacy.
Not generally the sort of activity that one associates with a project that is totally "grassroots" and "youth-driven."
:: :: ::
LET'S HAVE a closer look, shall we?
The Committee's home page at DraftWalker.com* includes a rotator feature — right side, scroll down — that cites two results from a poll that explicitly is sourced as "Draft Walker poll of 966 Florida voters, +/- 3.15%, April 2012."
The two results are:
1 75% of voters believe an independent candidate should take part in this fall's Presidential debates.
and
2 39% of voters are open to voting for David Walker in this year's Presidential election.
A few more details about this poll — including the specific date — are available from a "Draft David Walker Overview" document that is part of a list of downloadable "Volunteer Resources" toward the bottom of the Web site's "Get Involved" page.
This Overview document (pdf link) includes, in a Frequently Asked Questions section, the following:
Will the American people support this effort?
We recently conducted a public opinion survey to help answer that question. Results are based on an April 9th poll of 966 registered Florida voters (+/- 3.5%).
After sharing some information about David Walker, 39% said they would be open to voting for him if his name appeared on the general election ballot.
We found that his primary appeal to these voters is that his top issue is fiscal responsibility. This is no surprise given that 86% reported to be concerned (69% "very concerned") about our country's fiscal situation.
Overwhelming support, 75%, was given to idea of an independent candidate being able to debate President Obama and the Republican nominee this fall.
:: :: ::
CURIOUSLY, these hushed mentions — intermittently flashing at the bottom of the Draft Walker home page and buried in a Draft Walker volunteer document — appear to be the only two references to this large survey, by the Committee or anybody else.
But the scant information that the "grassroots and youth-driven" Committee to Get Walker Running provides about this "Draft Walker poll" still manages to tell us a number of important things:
The survey included a relatively large sample of 966 registered voters in Florida.
This was a telephone survey with a script of several questions and follow-up questions.
The survey includes margins of error, and is presented as a scientific poll.
All of this suggests a survey that was designed, written and conducted by a professional pollster or polling firm or PR/branding firm with polling capabilities — not a handful of college students and recent college graduates.
So here are a couple of questions for the Draft Walker committee...
1 Where can one access the full survey and results of this 9 April 2012 telephone survey of 966 Florida registered voters?
2 Which pollster or polling firm or PR/branding firm actually ran this survey?
3 Is this pollster, polling firm or PR/branding firm connected — in any way — (a) to Americans Elect; (b) to David Walker; or (c) to persons, firms or organizations who are connected to Americans Elect or to David Walker?
:: :: ::
THE OTHER QUESTION, of course, is: Who paid for this polling work?
Draft Walker — the Committee to Get Walker Running — may have paid for the work. Someone else, acting on the Committee's behalf, may have paid an individual pollster or firm directly for the work. Or a pollster or firm may have contributed all, or part, of the work pro bono.
Either way, the answers to all of these questions would put a good bit of meat on the bones of David Walker's confirmation of Neil Cavuto's observation that Draft Walker is "backing it up with money."
Walker went on to tell Cavuto that he himself is "not involved with" the Draft Walker committee, and that he has "not had communications with them."
But veteran journalist Alexis Simendinger originally reported this week that Walker had "cooperated with" Committee treasurer and manager Nick Troiano.
In an email on Tuesday afternoon, I asked Simendinger about this; and I noticed yesterday evening that the intriguing "cooperated with" had been dialed back to the somewhat labored "acknowledged the efforts of."
Still. This rather professional-sounding survey of Florida voters is one of a number of clues that the "youth-driven" Committee to Get Walker Running may be operating with more than a little bit of adult supervision — and the adult money that goes with it.
The question is: Who are the adults in this room?
* Attempting to visit the home page of DraftWalker.com frequently generates a splash sign-up feature that obscures the page. To make this pop-up disappear, simply click to either side of the pop-up.
David Walker has become a ubiquitous presence, of late, on national television news programs.
Last Monday — the same day that the Committee to Get Walker Running launched its Draft Walker effort with a new Web site, a press release, a Facebook page, and a Twitter feed — Walker was on MSNBC talking with Chuck Todd about the effort to draft him as a candidate on the Americans Elect line (video).
This past Sunday, Walker was on ABC as a panelist on This Week with George Stephanopoulos, who introduced Walker by saying that he was "from what I read online, perhaps an independent for President, this time around" (videos at the bottom of this item).
The fact is, with his media appearances and statements, no one has done more to fuel speculation about a David Walker candidacy than David Walker.
Indeed, although Walker tries to position himself as someone who is watching all of this from a distance — someone who knows only what he reads in the papers — Walker has given a number of cues, this past two weeks, that he knows a lot more about Draft Walker than he's letting on.
Yesterday, Walker was on Fox Business with Neil Cavuto. Apropos the question of the moment — Who's funding Draft Walker? — here's the relevant exchange (video starting at 0:48 — emphasis mine):
CAVUTO: You interested?
WALKER: I'm not a candidate, and I don't expect to be a candidate. I would rather run a issue-oriented campaign rather than a political campaign. But the fact is—
CAVUTO: But they think you could.
WALKER: Well, whether you can and whether you will are two different things. What I would prefer to do—
CAVUTO: They're backing it up with money, Dave.
WALKER: I understand that — well, I don't know that much about it, candidly. It's a truly independent effort. I'm not involved with it. I've not had communications with them.
A few observations:
1 When Cavuto says "they," he is referring to the Draft Walker committee and its supporters and volunteers.
2 When a national news anchor — whether on Fox or any other network — says "They're backing it up with money," the word "money" is code for a significant amount of money. The kind of money that influences — and is intended to influence — decisions.
3 From the tone and the delivery of both Cavuto's comment — "They're backing it up with money, Dave" — and Walker's response — "I understand that" — it seems very clear that both host and guest are trading on the same background information.
Both Walker and Cavuto take two things as givens: (a) that a pile of money is being made available for a Walker presidential run and (b) where that money is coming from.
4 What also seems clear is that David Walker does not want this information made public.
Note how Walker bows his head and looks away, as he is saying "I understand that."
Notice, too, how fiercely Walker starts to backpedal — and that he introduces vigorous "denial" body language — the instant those three words are out of his mouth. "I don't know that much about it, candidly." A classic "protest too much"-ish "tell" of someone who knows that he just has revealed a lot more than he intended to reveal.
But the cat already was out of the bag. Rough translation of what David Walker said to Neil Cavuto: "I'm aware that some big checks have been written or pledged to Draft Walker. I even know who the check writers are. But — candidly — I don't know that much about Draft Walker. I don't talk to them directly."
Candidly. Like "frankly." One of those little words that almost never means what it says.
"I don 't know that much about it, candidly."
But I do know some.
:: :: ::
So who's funding Draft Walker?
David Walker and Neil Cavuto seem to know.
Perhaps they and the committee would like to share with the rest of us.
It's very well known that Americans Elect advisory board member and draft candidate David Walker is the former Comptroller General of the United States.
It also is very well known that Walker is a co-founder of the group No Labels.
Indeed, Walker himself — in the statement he released last Tuesday, through his Comeback America Initiative — explicitly named No Labels as one of the things in his schedule that leaves little room for a presidential run right now:
I am not a candidate and don’t expect to become one. Rather, I am focused on my many responsibilities, including serving...as a national co-founder of No Labels and as a member of A[mericans] E[lect]’s Board of Advisors.
And yet...
Had you visited NoLabels.org two days later — the same day that DraftWalker.com, the Web site of the Committee to Get Walker Running ("Draft Walker"), sprang to life — and had you scanned the "Our People" page, where for months Walker had been listed as a Co-Founder, you'd have come up empty. David Walker was nowhere to be found. Scrubbed.
Moreover...
When Draft Walker officially launched this past Monday, the committee did not mention Walker's role at No Labels (or, for that matter, his role at Americans Elect) in its press release — or in its bio of Walker — or in the editorial published the same day by committee co-chairs Yoni Gruskin and Ryan Schoenike.
:: :: ::
By yesterday, David Walker's listing at NoLabels.org had been restored — but with a difference.
On the "Our People" page at the No Labels site, persons in various categories — from "Co-Founders" to "Citizen Leaders" to "Back Office Staff" — are presented initially as part of either a "grid" or a "list," with their names, photos and thumbnail biographical sketches. Clicking on any specific person's name directs to a dedicated page for that person, and sometimes this includes a slightly longer bio.
Here's a screenshot from the cache of David Walker's dedicated page at NoLabels.org, as it appeared on April 5 — exactly two weeks before DraftWalker.com went from being a splash page to a full-fledged site (albeit a relatively simple one):
Click to enlarge.
At that time, as you can see, Walker's bio read:
Dave Walker has over 30-years of public, private and not-for-profit sector leadership experience. He has received three Presidential appointments with unanimous Senate confirmation from Presidents of both major parties, including his most recent as Comptroller General of the United States (1998-2008).
Here's a screenshot Walker's photo and thumbnail bio, as it currently appears in the grid version of the "Our People" page at NoLabels.org. The text of the bio is the same, in the list version:
Click to enlarge.
Now, as you can see, Walker's bio reads:
Dave Walker has over 30-years of public, private and not-for-profit sector leadership experience.
Notice two things about David Walker's "new" bio at NoLabels.org.
First: The references to Walker's "three presidential appointments with unanimous Senate confirmation from Presidents of both major parties" and to his decade as Comptroller General of the United States have been deleted.
Second: It no longer is possible, as it was before — and as it remains with every other Co-Founder and, indeed, with every Citizen Leader and back office staffer on the larger No Labels list of "Our People" — to click Walker's name and get a dedicated photo-and-bio page for him.
:: :: ::
What's up with all this shuffling and scissoring of David Walker's bio?
Why is Draft Walker cropping David Walker's No Labels and Americans Elect connections — if, in fact, that's what it's doing?
Why, in its bio of David Walker, did No Labels trim the reference to his presidential appointments, including the one — Comptroller General — that anchors his brand as a fiscal reform advocate?
Why is the biography of the tonsorially challenged Walker getting all these haircuts?
Perhaps even more to the point: Who is ordering them?
Forget the Rules and the Rhetoric, the Reality Is That Americans Elect Is All About the Duopoly
The telltale signs have been telling the tale for some time now.
A big caption on the Americans Elect home page proclaims, in bold caps: A BIPARTISAN CHOICE IN 2012. Just beneath that, the explanation (emphasis mine): "Finalists must choose a running mate from a different party."
To clear up any doubts about which "parties" Americans Elect has in mind, there is a helpful graphic of a handshake, and the two hands are festooned with cufflinks — an elephant on the left, a donkey on the right. Crossing the aisle. Get it?
Dig a little deeper, and Section 2.1.2 of the corporate Rules of Americans Elect stipulates that every "Declared Candidate" is to submit a signed "Candidate Pledge," according to which, "as a condition of candidacy for Americans Elect nomination for President of the United States, I agree to accept the nomination and I pledge to" (emphasis mine):
Build the first coalition of my Presidency by selecting a Vice Presidential running mate who will help me forge the essential coalitions of members of the major parties to meet the crucial issues identified by the Americans Elect Delegates....
In Section 3.1.2 of the Rules, a corollary "Draft Committee Pledge" obligates draft committees to "urge the Drafted Candidate" to make the same pledge.
Then, a little further down the scroll, there is Section 8 of the Rules, the "Balanced Ticket Obligation," under which (emphases mine)
The Presidential and Vice Presidential ticket nominated by Americans Elect shall, as nearly as practicable, consist of persons of differing ideological perspective or positions...to result in a balanced coalition ticket responsive to the vast majority of citizens while remaining independent of special interests and the partisan interests of either major political party. Subject to reversal by majority vote of all registered Delegates, the Candidate Certification Committee shall determine whether any proposed ticket is balanced...."
And what is the basic, automatic threshold of "balance"? Two sentences down (emphasis mine)...
A ticket with two persons consisting of a Democrat and a Republican shall be deemed to be balanced.
No other ticket configuration is mentioned as being "deemed to be balanced."
:: :: ::
ALL OF THIS would seem to suggest a stacked deck.
And yet, just six weeks ago, on 9 February, Americans Elect COO Elliot Ackerman, appearing with Americans Elect advisory board member Mark McKinnon, told Dylan Ratigan (video starting at 4:56) that (emphases mine):
You know, the problem we see at Americans Elect is, we have two minority parties in this country. The plurality of Americans are independent, and they are shut out of what is a closed process. So, at Americans Elect, we're offering every registered voter in this country the opportunity to participate in a nominating process to put an independent ticket on the ballot in all 50 states, for the presidency.
Ackerman continued (emphases mine):
The problem that we have right now is that we have a political system that's rigged. And all the ideas have to be funneled into two separate and narrow ideologies, and that doesn't leave enough room for true solutions-based policies to emerge. So what we're doing is opening the process up, by having a spot on the ballot for an independent candidate to emerge.
And (emphases mine):
What we take so much heart in is, nearly half a million Americans [more like 400,000, at that point] have signed up to participate through Americans Elect. These are people who don't want to quit. These are people who reject the idea that it has to be a binary choice in 2012. And they are people who want to see an independent candidate emerge who can put forth some real, credible solutions outside of the two major parties.
A couple of weeks later, on 21 February, Ackerman and McKinnon were back on MSNBC, this time with Chuck Todd, who introduced the segment (video) this way (emphases mine):
Well it was twenty years ago, this month, that three was the company in the Presidential race. Ross Perot jumped in against George Bush and Bill Clinton, becoming the last serious candidate to run as an independent and make an impact. Could this be the year we see another third-party candidate get a real shot...?
Shortly into the segment (starting at 1:56), Ackerman notes (emphases mine):
We've seen hundreds of thousands of people show up. They're very interested in the idea that they could have a voice that doesn't have to modulate between the two major parties....By the end of June, there'll be a ticket that emerges — it'll be an independent ticket....
On the same day, 21 February, Americans Elect sent out an actual press release promoting former U.S. Comptroller General David Walker, one of the newest members of its Leadership team. Just a couple of days before that, Thomas Friedman, Americans Elect's own John the Baptist, had devoted an entire column to why he thought Walker should run for President.
Walker is registered as — you guessed it — an independent.
A week earlier, another member of the Americans Elect Leadership team, Doug Schoen — who also is a paid consultant to Americans Elect — was up on the Daily Beast with a piece speculating on what would happen "if a new candidate enters as an independent through the Americans Elect process" (emphasis mine).
Schoen hammered the word "independent" seventeen times, in this op-ed-length piece.
:: :: ::
SO WHAT WAS UP with all this "independent" talk?
Was Americans Elect just trying to show how maverick-y it was?
Was it pandering to independent voters, in an effort to boost its low delegate numbers?
Almost certainly, all of these dynamics were at play. But the other possibility, however remote, was that Americans Elect actually was starting to play by its own corporate Rules.
After all: Apart from the presumption in favor of a D-R or an R-D ticket — remember that, in Section 8 of the Rules, only these two configurations "shall be deemed to be balanced" — the only explicit prohibition, in the Rules or the By-Laws, comes in the next sentence of Rule 8, which says that "a ticket with two persons of the same political party shall be deemed to be imbalanced."
There is one sentence in the Overview to the Rules which specifies that "any Independent Presidential candidate must select a Vice Presidential candidate who balances the Presidential candidate’s positions...."
But, based on Rule 8, this is the case for any Presidential candidate — so the specific injunction to Independent candidates seems redundant.
Assuming that it is Rule 8 that governs, there are a multitude of possible ticket configurations. Indeed, according to a strict reading of the Rules and By-Laws of Americans Elect, each of the following configurations could be legitimate. Of course, substituting for "'Minor' Party" the specifics of "Green," "Libertarian," "Reform," or what have you, grows the possibilities even further.
Could this have been part of what Americans Elect leader and consultant Doug Schoen meant, when he wrote "independent" 17 times in one op-ed?
Was it what Americans Elect COO Elliot Ackerman meant, when he told Dylan Ratigan last month that "what we're doing is opening the process up"?
:: :: ::
NO, actually.
Indeed, the clear takeaway from this past week's media (self-) outings by Americans Elect is that Ackerman the Younger was overplaying "independent."
If you want to know what Americans Elect really means by "independent," you have to pay attention to the paid consultant, Schoen, who, in his Daily Beast column, consistently links "independent" to "centrist" and — at least as important — to "bipartisan" (emphases mine):
In 1992, when Ross Perot ran for president — the last centrist candidate to make a serious run as an independent....
and
Twenty-four percent said they would vote for an independent, bipartisan unity ticket....
and
[S]upport for an independent was still at 25 percent, as one quarter said they would vote for “an alternative unity ticket with a Democrat and a Republican as president and vice president....
In this view, "independent" means "not the Democratic Party ticket and not the Republican Party ticket, but still using D and R as the basic building blocks."
In other words: Not really independent, at all.
:: :: ::
AMERICANS ELECT couldn't have made this message any clearer than it did when it dispatched two former governors, over the course of the last week — director Christie Todd Whitman and advisory board member David Boren — for a carefully curated "one-two," with one news organization whose orientation, to the extent that one can specify these things, is center-right and another that leans center-left.
First up, last Friday, Whitman and Boren were joined by former defense secretary Bill Cohen in a Politico op-ed in which the authors frame Americans Elect as an effort to reform the Democratic and Republican parties by way of an ultimatum:
The American people should challenge the two parties and their presidential candidates to make three ironclad commitments:
First, candidates of both parties should endorse the main principles contained in the Simpson-Bowles bipartisan budget proposal....
Second, [they] should create a national unity government by including leaders from both parties in the Cabinet....
Third, [they] should commit to support a statutory approach or, if required, a constitutional amendment which permits a limit on campaign spending and allows only individual citizens eligible to vote in each election to contribute....
If the party leaders ignore these serious challenges, then it is time for the voters to consider another alternative...Americans Elect.
But, as the writers quickly reassure, this "alternative" isn't meant to be that much of a threat to the donkeys and the elephants. Pay careful attention to the words they use. You can be sure that they and Americans Elect have (emphases mine):
[Americans Elect] has set up a process...to select the first bipartisan presidential ticket in U.S. history. The ticket candidates for president and vice president would be required to be from different parties.
For example, a Democrat and Republican would run as a team. If elected, they could form a truly bipartisan cabinet and administration.
Americans Elect will likely obtain the petition signatures needed to place a bipartisan ticket on the ballot in all 50 states this November. Millions of Americans have already signed the petitions. A victory by this ticket with this approach could be the “shock therapy” needed to get the two party system working again.
An alternative ticket may help get America’s leaders back to their greatest responsibility — “governing.” Voters must also, of course, carefully evaluate the Americans Elect ticket, with a Republican and a Democrat, to determine whether it merits endorsement and support.
Yes, "a Democrat and Republican" — "for example." The conventionally bipartisan vision of the Establishmentariat, as channeled by three of its scions.
A couple of days later, on Monday evening, Whitman and Boren reinforced this message in a PBS Newshour segment that had been taped a few days earlier.
Unfortunately (from a journalistic perspective), segment anchor Judy Woodruff seeded the message both in her promotional tweet on Monday
and in her lead-in to the segment itself, which Woodfruff framed this way (emphases mine):
With rhetoric heating up and calls for bipartisanship growing across the country, a new group called Americans Elect is pushing a new way. The nonprofit says it will secure ballot access for a unity ticket — one Democrat, one Republican — in all 50 states in November.
In the segment, Boren closes the loophole of the Politico op-ed's more general call to "include leaders from both parties in the Cabinet." Here, he has specific numbers in mind: "half Democrat, half Republican." Like the FEC. No other representation required.
Even the suggestion that he might be supporting an independent draws from Boren's lips a pitched "No!"
In a brief video chat the next day, Judy Woodruff asked Americans Elect Chief Technology Officer Josh Levine:
Are you saying there's just no point of view whatsoever, on the part of Americans Elect? I mean, just the fact that you're staying within the two major parties, having a Republican and a Democrat on the ticket, says something about where you are in the mainstream of American politics, right?
To which, Levine gamely responded:
You know, our only methodology that's different about Americans Elect is that the outcome cannot be aligned. That's the only thing about Americans Elect that is in any way, shape or form an "agenda," so to speak — that you can't pick the same ideology as your running mate. But which one you are, we don't care. It's completely using the American people to decide the outcome — and, at that point, the American people are gonna decide on the bipartisan spirit of the outcome and whether it meets the goal of the whole thought process.
But there can be no serious doubt that, unless you are Michael Bloomberg — who, in any case, is an "independent" in name only (yes, IINO) — or, perhaps, one of a tiny handful of other self-styled independents who conform to the Americans Elect "type," there is room at the Americans Elect table for two registrations only: Republican and Democrat.
Americans Elect COO Elliot Ackerman told Chuck Todd that those who have registered at AmericansElect.org are "very interested in the idea that they could have a voice that doesn't have to modulate between the two major parties."
But that is exactly what Americans Elect is positioning itself to do, is it not?
This project is not about creating access for independent and "minor" party candidates. And it's not about challenging the power of the so-called "major" parties, as represented by the Democrats and the Republicans.
It is about shoring up the power of certain kinds of Democrats and Republicans.
Or, How Americans Elect Is Trying to Have Its Cake and Eat It Too
The other day, in the course of discussing the dogged refusal of Americans Elect to disclose the names of its financial backers, I wondered:
How is it that Lawrence Lessig, one of the most informed and eloquent critics of the undue influence of money over politics — and one of the most ardent and public advocates for financial transparency from elected officials, corporations and political institutions — winds up on the Board of Advisors (see "Leadership," here) of a political group with such a shadowy financial pedigree?
Shortly afterwards, the respected election law scholar and blogger Rick Hasen tweeted Lessig a version of my question — "Do you still support Americans Elect, given their transparency problem?" — and this triggered a lively exchange, which is recorded on their two blogs: Lessig's initial response, Hasen's counter and Lessig's final volley.
In the second of his two posts, Lessig offers this crisp little summary of his argument (emphases Lessig's):
AE is a platform. It will give one candidate a chance to get on 50 ballots, and challenge the Democratic and Republican nominee.
What will that candidate owe AE? Gratitude, no doubt. But is there anything in that gratitude that should lead anyone to worry that the candidate will bend one way or the other because of these secret funders?
How could it? If the candidates don’t even know who the funders are (and I can attest with certainty that [declared Americans Elect presidential candidate Buddy] Roemer (who also is critical of the nontransparency) doesn’t), how is the position of the funder supposed to affect the candidate and his or her positions?
Lessig's position seems to be that, although it might be preferable for Americans Elect to reveal who its funders are...
1 The anonymity of Americans Elect's funders is not a serious concern, because all they are funding is (a) the creation of an online voting platform and (b) 50-state ballot access — not specific candidates.
2 The anonymity of these funders is not an issue, anyway, because, unless both a specific candidate and a specific funder(s) are known to one another, there is no opportunity for political corruption to occur.
In taking this line, Lessig echoes and amplifies the message that one hears from Americans Elect officials like CEO Kahlil Byrd and COO Elliot Ackerman, as well as from Lessig's fellow advisory board member at Americans Elect, Mark McKinnon: that Americans Elect simply (a) is an alternative mechanism for getting on the ballot, and (b) is not backing any particular single candidate — and thus is in compliance with its IRS corporate status as a 501c4 "social welfare organization."
This message is at odds, however, with the one being promoted by another organization that has Lessig as an advisory board member: the Sunlight Foundation, which, in its reports and news updates (here, here and here, under "Campaign Finance"), has been tracking a petition by two watchdog groups, Democracy 21 and the Campaign Legal Center, calling on the IRS to tighten its regulation of 501c4's and, specifically, to investigate four of these groups, including Americans Elect, for non-compliance.
My big concern [until quite recently] was that we would see a lot of transfers of money from 501c4s to affiliated super PACs to shield the identity of donors to super PACs....[T]he reason these transfers are not taking place is that it appears the 501c4s are engaging in much more direct election-related activity than they have in the past. That is, we are seeing some 501c4s becoming pure election vehicles. The relation of 501c4s to super PACs is now like the past relation between 527s and PACs — these are now the vehicles of questionable legality to influence elections....[F]ixing the coordination rules for super PACs...seems to be fighting yesterday’s war already. The key is to stop 501c4s from becoming shadow super PACs. Yes, campaign finance reform community, it has become this bad: I want more super PACs, because the 501c4 alternative is worse!
In fact, what the Americans Elect funders are funding is considerably more than just an alternative voting platform and a ballot access initiative — two seemingly altruistic enterprises.
The political contours of this "more" reveal the inadequacy of Lessig's response to Hasen's query.
Indeed, that Lessig identifies himself only as a "supporter" of Americans Elect — never mentioning that he actually is on the Board of Advisors — suggests that Lessig may be well aware of a certain cognitive dissonance in his having a simultaneous official role in two organizations, one of which, Americans Elect, is keeping in the shadows the very thing on which the other, the Sunlight Foundation, is trying to shine a light.
As we'll see, what Hasen called Americans Elect's "transparency problem" cuts in a few different directions.
:: :: ::
FOLLOWING Lessig's initial response to Hasen, Henry Farrell, who teaches political science and international affairs at George Washington University, posted an insightful and nuanced challenge to Lessig at Crooked Timber, the group blog where Farrell is a contributor. This excerpt offers an opening to understanding the anti-democratic impulse at the heart of Americans Elect (bold emphasis mine):
The problem that Lessig seems partly insensible to is that Americans Elect plausibly reflects a kind of purportedly non-partisan corruption that is more subtle but also more damaging than direct graft, or even the implicit quid-pro-quo relationships that he rightly excoriates. [University of British Columbia professor] Mark Warren gets at this nicely.
If corruption professionals look upon democracy as an ambiguous force at best, one reason may be found in our received conception of political corruption — the abuse of public office for private gain. ... This conception marginalizes the political dimensions of corruption — in particular, corruption of the processes of contestation through which common purposes, norms, rules are created; the institutional patterns that support and justify corruption; and the political cultures within which actions, institutions, and even speech might be judged corrupt.
...[T]he basic norm of democracy is empowered inclusion of those affected in collective decisions and actions. ... In a democracy, meanings of political corruption gain their normative traction by reference to this basic and abstract norm of democracy. Political corruption in a democracy is a form of unjustifiable exclusion or disempowerment, marked by normative duplicity on the part of the corrupt. Corruption is marked not only by exclusion...but also by covertness and secrecy, even as inclusive norms are affirmed in public. Stated otherwise, the norm of inclusion is not denied, but rather corrupted. Corruption within a democracy is thus a specific kind of disempowerment that I shall call duplicitous exclusion. Thus, in addition to the substantive harms often associated with corruption in democracies — inefficiencies, misdirected public funds, uneven enforcements of rights, etc. — we can think of corruption as damaging democratic processes.
Hasen’s critique suggests that Americans Elect is corrupt in just this sense. Even as it publicly affirms norms of inclusion, it provides a tiny and unaccountable group with a veto power that will be exercised to ensure that a ‘centrist’ candidate is chosen.
Lessig does seem to play up the traditional quid pro quo transaction — as though the most likely potential scenario for political corruption would be one in which a specific funder (or funders) used Americans Elect to gain access to a specific candidate in order to extract (a) personal benefit(s). Of course, this is a straw man that Lessig easily knocks down, as soon as he points out that the donors are anonymous.
But, for some observers, it is not down at the granular, personal level of quid pro quo that the opportunity and the risk for corruption is most evident at Americans Elect. Rather, it is up at the systemic, process level — the level that, in order to see what's going on, requires a wider-angle lens that Lessig seems unwilling to use.
:: :: ::
IT'S IMPORTANT to understand that Americans Elect has a formally stated policy of neutrality that — if its Board actually was to enforce the policy — would go a long way toward assuaging concerns that individual directors or advisory board members or, indeed, the Americans Elect corporation as a whole, were pushing specific candidates.
The problem is that the Board does not seem to enforce the policy. At all.
According to Americans Elect's By-Laws, both Directors (Section 4.12) and Officers (Section 6.1)
shall not communicate or act in favor of or in opposition to any candidate for President or Vice President at any time before the adjournment of the online nominating convention of Americans Elect.
In a much broader mandate that would seem to include members of the Board of Advisors and anyone else who holds a titled American Elect position, the corporation's Rules (Section 10.0) state:
Until the Americans Elect ticket has been selected by majority vote of participating Delegates in the Nominating Round of voting, Americans Elect shall be neutral with respect to all Candidates and shall not endorse, oppose, advance, or advocate any particular Candidate.
Note that no distinction is made between "draft" and "declared" candidates.
And, yet — for months — there has been a steady stream of Americans Elect directors, advisory board members and other personnel playing what Hasen calls "kissy-face" with various dream candidates. This is just a sampling:
1
In Hasen's example, former New Jersey governor and Americans Elect director Christie Todd Whitman joins former Oklahoma governor and U.S. senator David Boren in a statement — sent out as an Americans Elect press release — praising outgoing U.S. senator Olympia Snowe and quoting Snowe's citation of the "vital need for the political center in order for our democracy to flourish."
2
Prior to this, Whitman went to the media at least seven times in favor of Jon Huntsman.
3
Courtesy of Lessig's Sunlight Foundation, we know that Americans Elect advisory board member Lynn Forester de Rothschild held a thousand-dollar-a-head cocktail reception for Huntsman in January.
4
Also in January, a few weeks after Buddy Roemer declared his intention to seek the Americans Elect nomination, Americans Elect National Campus Director Nick Troiano staged (as in "stunt") a handful of Americans Elect promotional videos featuring Roemer.
5
Just a couple of weeks ago, the day after Roemer dropped his Republican bid and re-declared his Americans Elect candidacy, Lessig himself went on MSNBC's "Morning Joe" and outlined what he sees as the need to "knit together these 'outsider' movements" calling for solutions on issues like the deficit and to address the "underlying [financial] corruption issue."
This triggered the following exchange with Joe Scarborough (video starting at 3:06):
Scarborough: Professor, do you agree with me that, of all the candidates that are out there right now in 2012, Buddy Roemer fits this profile best — and actually, I believe, has the best message, pure message, for 2012?
Lessig: Absolutely! I've been with Buddy, I had him at my house ... Absolutely! ... Absolutely! I don't believe in his policies, but I believe in his reform, and I think — you're right — that he is the one candidate that would have done something.
6
"Would have done something." As if to suggest that Roemer no longer was running. And yet, only a week later, Lessig was back on the Scarborough set, with Roemer himself (video). Watch this clip and tell me that both guests are not campaigning for Buddy Roemer:
7
Just this week, Lessig took his Roemer campaign to Twitter:
That afternoon, the Coffee Party — another group on whose advisory board Lessig serves — re-tweeted Lessig's call to its 12,000 Twitter followers, illustrating that none of this political activity by Americans Elect, its directors, advisory board members and other staff is happening in a vacuum.
There is, of course, the possibility that Lessig has his own agenda for Americans Elect that doesn't jibe with the No Labels-ish storyline this is being promoted by its founder, directors, and officers — a storyline that also, one assumes, was "bought" by its seed funders.
But it's not all clear how Lessig's reported desire to lead others in "occupying Americans Elect" for a specific "reform" candidate — and, indeed, going on MSNBC ("Morning Joe") twice in the last month to campaign for, and with, Buddy Roemer — squares with Lessig's being an Americans Elect advisory board member who, according to Americans Elect's own Rules and By-Laws, is bound by a strict neutrality policy that places what he is doing, well...out of bounds.
8
A couple of weeks ago, Americans Elect advisory board member Mark McKinnon was on the panel for Jon Huntsman's much-discussed appearance on "Morning Joe." The newly disencumbered Huntsman, who had recently left the Republican race, made news by saying that "this duopoly is tired" and calling for "something to compete against the duopoly," "some sort of third-party movement," "some alternative voice out there."
McKinnon, for his part, was full of praise for Huntsman, saying (video starting at 7:38):
I love everything you’re saying, and I’ve always liked your politics, and I’m sorry you didn’t make it through the Republican primary, but I think you’ll — can provide real political leadership, whatever you do going forward.
When asked by Scarborough (starting at 11:09), "Can an independent be elected President in 2012?", McKinnon offered a more specific idea of what Huntsman's "real political leadership" might look like:
Just on a blind poll, even when people don't even know who the ticket would be, 25 percent of voters say they'd support [an independent ticket]....Put Jon Huntsman on that ticket, and you'd get up to 51 percent, I guarantee.
9
Last November, McKinnon shared the stage with Americans Elect CEO Kahlil Byrd, Washington Post national political correspondent Karen Tumulty and political consultant Tad Devine at a moderated Harvard forum that considered the viability of an Americans Elect ticket in 2012. At one point — video starting at 20:53 — the moderator asks McKinnon what "type" of candidate he thinks would step up to run under the Americans Elect banner. McKinnon — “just off the top of my head” (but then reading off a piece of paper, suggesting that the question is a set-up) — obliges with the following roster of nine:
Americans Elect director Christie Todd Whitman, Jon Huntsman, Chuck Hagel, Bob Kerrey, Condoleezza Rice, Tom Brokaw, Joe Lieberman, Evan Bayh, and John Chambers.
He reads the prepared list, with the barely disguised delight of a child naughtily but irrepressibly telling a secret — leaving no doubt that, between the question and the answer, "would" has turned into "should."
10
And then there's this slide from the Americans Elect presentation that Nick Troiano put together in January
offering these 49 names (originally 50, including Steve Jobs):
Does this list look random to you? Sure, there are a few token "liberals" here. But the main point of the list seems to be to illustrate what Americans Elect sees as the tolerable limits of "left" and "right."
And, with few exceptions, everybody here — which includes most of those already mentioned, as well as former U.S. Comptroller General David Walker, who, right after being promoted by original Americans Elect champion of "radical centrism" Thomas Friedman as "a third voice for 2012," got his own kissy press release from Americans Elect — falls safely and uniformly with range defined by "conservative Democrat," all the way over on the center, and "moderate Republican," all the way over on the center right.
Which is not surprising, really, given CEO Kahlil Byrd's remark, at the Harvard forum, that "America is a center-right country" — a comment that Byrd rendered blithely, as if to be voicing something that was so obvious that only a fool would try to dispute it.
But who created this list? Certainly, it wasn't National Campus Director Nick Troiano, who just graduated from Georgetown last year.
More likely, it was the same people who created the list of 70-plus people — the list above, plus another 20 or so? — that, according to Byrd, Americans Elect has been trying to sell on the idea of running on an Americans Elect ticket.
Is this Americans Elect wish list being curated by some, or all, of the corporation's "Leadership"? Certainly.
Are some, or all, of the group's financial backers on this Leadership list? Surely.
Are these backers also part of this recruiting effort — including deciding whom is to be recruited? Very likely.
Which specific backers are helping with recruiting decisions? Are the recruiting suggestions of these backers being weighted, either explicitly or implicitly, depending on the levels of their contributions? These things, we don't know.
But this much is certain: None of these promotional activities, on the part of Americans Elect directors, advisors and other personnel qualify as "neutral," under the Rules and By-Laws of Americans Elect.
And Americans Elect is doing a lot more than just building a voting platform and creating ballot access.
:: :: ::
ADDING to the dynamic that makes Americans Elect's agenda — or, to be more accurate, its owning of its agenda — as dark as its money, some official leaders of Americans Elect are in the habit of promoting Americans Elect and even promoting specific candidates, in the media and in other public settings, without disclosing their formal ties to the organization.
As we've seen, Lawrence Lessig never mentioned, in his posts defending Americans Elect's financial non-disclosure practices, that he is on the group's Board of Advisors. Nor did he mention it in his appearances on "Morning Joe," when he was promoting Americans Elect declared candidate Buddy Roemer. Nor, for that matter, did either of the hosts or any of the panelists mention it. Nor was he provided with an onscreen caption that connected him in any way with Americans Elect. In fact, although Roemer made a cryptic reference to a "unity ticket," Americans Elect wasn't mentioned at all, in either of these segments — which is odd, given that they took place in the immediate wake of Roemer's having dropped his Republican bid and re-declared his Americans Elect candidacy.
Ditto, Americans Elect advisory board member Mark McKinnon, who — in addition to his Harvard appearance — has been a ubiquitous presence on NBC political news programs where Americans Elect has been the main topic; where Americans Elect or potential Americans Elect candidates have been analyzed and discussed; or where McKinnon has introduced and promoted Americans Elect in the context of another discussion. Over the last six months, McKinnon has appeared on such programs or program segments hosted by David Gregory, Andrea Mitchell, Joe Scarborough, Mika Brzezinki, Dylan Ratigan and Chuck Todd.
In some cases, actually, he appears alongside Americans Elect COO Elliot Ackerman. But — as you can see here, here, here, here, here, here, here and here — in no case does McKinnon ever self-identify as being what he is: on the official Americans Elect team. The hosts, for their part, identify McKinnon only as a "political analyst" or "political strategist" or as a co-founder of No Labels.
As Jim Cook of Irregular Times points out (with linked reference to similar examples involving Americans Elect advisory board member and Michael Bloomberg pollster Douglas Schoen):
This is part of a pattern of Americans Elect corporate leaders going on TV and promoting their Americans Elect political brand under the neutral guise of “expert” without disclosing their leadership positions within Americans Elect.
A person hawking a product on a television news show should disclose (or have disclosed for them) their affiliation with the corporation selling the product. A person who will not disclose their affiliation is being unethical. A news show that does not disclose such affiliations when they are public is not doing its job. A corporation that sends its leaders to sell a political solution in disguise has not earned your trust.
Transparency? Hell, even the Americans Elect FAQs are buried as two 3-month-old posts — here and here — on the Web site's unsearchable News feed.
:: :: ::
A COUPLE of weeks ago, Kahlil Byrd, speaking at a panel discussion at New York University, cited the super PAC as one aspect of the two-party system that dramatizes the need for the kind of presidential ticket that Americans Elect is trying to produce. He was quoted as saying that:
the super PAC...seems like such an enormous thing. But it's 15 or 20 guys — and women — who are giving a lot of money and tilting campaigns one way or the other.
OK. But — given this and this and this and this and this — how is Americans Elect substantially any different, in political terms?
Of course, even in political terms, Americans Elect doesn't look exactly how we expect a super PAC to look. Which is the point of the term "shadow super PAC."
There is one snippet of Americans Elect messaging that, when placed alongside everything else, seems to reveal — perhaps with unintended candor — what Americans Elect really is about and why it's a problem.
The citation, above, about Americans Elect director Christie Todd Whitman's habit of promoting Jon Huntsman, highlighted Whitman's December 2011 interview with Philadelphia Inquirer reporter Joelle Farrell. Here's the relevant exchange (emphasis mine):
Farrell: You've said you like former Utah Gov. Jon Huntsman. Do you think he could be the Americans Elect nominee?
Whitman: To me, he's the type of candidate that would appeal to them.
That's the same word, remember, that Americans Elect advisory board member Mark McKinnon had used at Harvard, a month earlier. I suggested that this particular moment, between McKinnon and the moderator — which provided McKinnon with an opportunity to read his list of nine favorites — seems a little staged (starting at 20:53; emphasis mine):
Moderator: Who's gonna be — who's the type of candidate? Mark mentioned all the great — all these great Americans who could be great presidents, or who certainly think in their own minds they could be great presidents. Who are the types of people you think might step up and actually put their name forward, or to have their name put forward at this nominating convention?....
McKinnon: Uh — sure — well — just off the top of my head, I'll tell you the types of people? —
Moderator: Yeah, types, I'm not gonna ask for specifics —
Of course, McKinnon plunges right into nine specifics. And notice how handy he is with that list.
Notice, too, that Americans Elect CEO Kahlil Byrd, who is sitting next to McKinnon on the stage, doesn't challenge McKinnon's riff. To the contrary, he seems to join in the chuckle over the reaction to someone's (his own or Tad Devine's) reaction that "those are good people."
But why is any Americans Elect director or advisory board member talking about what "type" of candidate would — or should — make a "love connection" with Americans Elect? After all, Americans Elect is just creating a voting platform and a ballot line. Right, Kahlil? Right, Eliott? Christie? Mark? Larry? Right?!!
One well-placed writer cracked that, with his remarks on "Morning Joe," Jon Huntsman was sending a "Bat Signal" to Americans Elect.
Of course, as we've seen, Americans Elect has for months been sending Bat Signals to Jon Huntsman and others in Huntsman's "fiscally conservative, socially and culturally moderate" mold. And, just as the original Bat Signal always was revealed against the backdrop of a cloud, the constant, drip-drip pulse of statements and lists with which Americans Elect — through its directors, advisory board members, and staff, as well as through its own corporate news channel — has promoted specific candidates now has created a political tag cloud that reveals a highly specific ideological image.
:: :: ::
HOLD THAT thought, while you pay attention to this...
According to Section 8.0 of the corporate Rules of Americans Elect (emphases mine):
The Presidential and Vice Presidential ticket nominated by Americans Elect shall...consist of persons of differing ideological perspective or positions on the Platform of Questions to result in a balanced coalition ticket responsive to the vast majority of citizens....Subject to reversal by majority vote of all registered Delegates, the Candidate Certification Committee shall determine whether any proposed ticket is balanced by reference to candidates’ responses to the Platform of Questions....
So what are the Platform of Questions and the Candidate Certification Committees? According to Section 5.1 of the corporate By-Laws, these both are "Standing Committees of Americans Elect"; and, according to Sections 5.3.2 (Platform of Questions Committee) and 5.4.2 (Candidate Certification Committee) of the By-Laws, the members of both committees are "appointed by the Board," "serve at the pleasure of the Board" and "may be removed without cause."
Let's take a walk in the weeds, shall we?
According to Section 5.3.1 of the By-Laws (emphases mine), the Platform of Questions Committee — which, remember, is "appointed by" and "serves at the pleasure of" the Board...
shall be responsible for developing proposed questions for submission to the Delegates; polling the Delegates to determine which questions to include in the final Platform of Questions, as well as any amendments thereto; tendering the Platform of Questions to all persons who are identified either as potential or drafted candidates for Americans Elect nomination...disseminating all responses by candidates or draftees to the Platform of Questions; ensuring that candidate and draftee answers to the Platform of Questions are responsive and seeking responsive answers thereto; and, subject to the direction of the Board, development of supplemental Platform of Questions as national and world events may dictate.
According to Section 5.4.1 of the By-Laws, the Candidate Certification Committee — also a committee that is "appointed by" and that "serves at the pleasure of" the Board (emphasis mine)...
shall be responsible for certifying that candidates and draftees for the offices of President and Vice President meet all constitutional eligibility, as well as to develop and apply criteria of demonstrated achievements based on qualifications of past Presidents and Vice Presidents, to ensure that only persons capable of performing the duties of President and Vice President are eligible for voting by the registered Delegates, subject only to a majority vote to the contrary by all registered Delegates....
Still with me? OK. But what, exactly, is this "Platform of Questions"? According to Sections 2.1.3.1 and 2.1.3.2 of the Rules (emphases mine):
“Comprehensive Questions” shall mean the detailed questionnaire posted on the Website to be answered by Delegates that shall be considered by the Platform of Questions Committee in preparing the Platform of Questions...and “Platform of Questions” shall mean the Delegate-driven and Platform of Questions Committee-refined questions posed to and answered by all Delegates and Candidates to ensure informed decisions by Delegates and unambiguous positions by Candidates ... Development of [the] Platform of Questions shall be determined by the Platform of Questions Committee in accordance with the Americans Elect Bylaws after consideration of Delegates’ responses to the Comprehensive Questions and may be supplemented from time to time before the nominating round of voting.
Do you begin to see a picture emerge? Do you see how much latitude the Board and its Committees have and how little influence the non-Board and -Committee delegates are guaranteed? (Yes, I understand that there is language about how the Board's decision is "subject to reversal by majority vote of all registered Delegates." But the voter suppression on display in the recent test case of the Board's response to the first delegate challenge to one of its decisions — documented (in sequence) here, here and here — should disabuse anyone of the notion that this Board is going to "go gently into that good night.")
Look, again, at Section 8.0 of the Rules (emphases mine):
The Presidential and Vice Presidential ticket nominated by Americans Elect shall...consist of persons of differing ideological perspective or positions on the Platform of Questions to result in a balanced coalition ticket responsive to the vast majority of citizens....Subject to reversal by majority vote of all registered Delegates, the Candidate Certification Committee shall determine whether any proposed ticket is balanced by reference to candidates’ responses to the Platform of Questions....
Bearing in mind everything else — including the Bat Signals and the tag clouds — do you see how "balance" begins to look like code for "type"?
:: :: ::
HERE'S the thing...
The same Americans Elect board that is refusing to enforce its own policy of neutrality — the same board that is permitting and enabling a specific "centrist" ideological profile to emerge in the public imagination as the Americans Elect "type" — also is the board that has determined that an ideologically "balanced" ticket is what is required, and that has empowered itself to decide what qualifies as "balance."
Lawrence Lessig wonders, in his two posts...
"How is the secret money having any secret effect?"
"How could the secrecy of the funders corrupt anything?"
"How [are] secret donors...going to steer this wide platform of potential competitors one way or the other?"
Here are some questions in return:
Given the extraordinary power that the corporate board of Americans Elect has secured for itself in shaping the eventual Americans Elect ticket...
Given, too, Americans Elect's pattern of promoting only those candidates that answer to a specific ideological profile...
Is it reasonable to believe that each of the 50 or so wealthy secret backers of Americans Elect who floated the corporation secret six- and seven-figure checks did so without having been provided assurances by Americans Elect that Americans Elect, for its part, would be stacking the deck for exactly the kind of "centrist" nominee and ticket that it's been promoting for all these months?
What influence do these secret backers have in deciding who is on the Platform of Questions Committee, what the questions are, and how the questions are framed?
What influence do these secret backers have in deciding who is on the Candidate Certification Committee, how "balance" is defined, and which nominee and ticket is certified as the most "balanced"?
And, especially given that Americans Elect, its directors, advisory board members and staff have whispered the actual names of people who, it would seem, all conform to an Americans Elect "type" of "fiscally conservative, socially and culturally moderate" candidate...
Does the fact that Americans Elect seems so clearly to be working to ensure a specific type of nominee and ticket, rather than a specific one, really make the group any less "political," for IRS purposes?
And does this fact that Americans Elect seems so clearly to be working to ensure a specific type of nominee and ticket, rather than a specific one, really make it any less a sign of political corruption, that Americans Elect presents itself to the public as a neutral model of openness and transparency, while acting in a contradictory fashion — and that Americans Elect pays for this exercise with tens of millions of dollars of money from funders that Americans Elect helps to keep secret?
Lessig wonders "how secret donors are going to steer this wide platform of potential competitors one way or the other." As I hope I've helped to demonstrate, here's how they already are doing it:
By funding a corporation and a process that consistently enfranchises one specific type of candidate (and supporters, including delegate supporters, of such a candidate) — and that, in so doing, consistently disenfranchises all other types of candidate (and supporters, including delegate supporters, of such candidates).
If you are a potential candidate, or supporter of such a candidate, who doesn't fit the American Elect profile, why bother participating, if you've been given reason to believe that the fix already is in?
Even leaving the money out of it, what Americans Elect is doing answers to the definition of the more insidious brand of political corruption that Henry Farrell highlights — one in which, as Mark Warren writes, "the norm of inclusion is not denied, but rather corrupted." Take the secret money into account, and one also has the more obvious kind of corruption that Lessig has yet to acknowledge as a possibility.
So, one has to wonder: Exactly what kind of "social welfare" does Americans Elect have in mind?
Lessig talks a lot about quid pro quo, and my guess is that there is a quid pro quo going on at Americans Elect. But it's not the quid pro quo that Lessig rightly criticizes elsewhere in the political system — i.e., the one between a funder(s) and a specific candidate or elected official, in which the candidate or official is the one responsible for the "deliverable."
Rather, it's a quid pro quo between funders and a specific organization. In this case, the corporate entity of Americans Elect is the one responsible for the deliverable — and the deliverable is a "centrist" nominee and ticket.
Of course, the contours of this new kind of quid pro quo are even more difficult to detect and trace than those of the old one — another reason why "shadow super PAC" is such an apt term.
Meet the new boss. Just like the old boss — but with slicker PR.
