PACs and funds


PDA






monotonous_iterancy
March 16, 2014, 06:45 PM
Today I've had a few strains of thought in my mind, I started thinking of the SAFE act, and that made me remember a post Midwest made months ago.

Yes we CAN do something to help in other states, even though we don't live there.

If every one of those 100 million gun owners would just contribute $1 each yearly into a National Fund purely for the election of pro-gun candidates, maybe we would not be having these threads. If every gun owner in the country would contribute $5 each, that would be 1/2 billion dollars per year, that would make a difference.

If every gun shop in the country would let each customer take out an extra $1 or $2 to contribute to this National fund, that would be the easiest way to raise money.

Would would administer it?

NRAILA

GOA

A separate organization?

The money would be specifically earmarked for all pro-gun candidates especially in anti-gun states and areas. Someone buying a rifle in Idaho could earmark an extra dollar or two (if he or she wanted) to help elect pro-gun candidates in anti-gun areas like the Northeast.

This way even though we live in a pro-gun state, would could do something to help our fellow gun owners in anti-gun states and areas.


I think it's a great idea, and I started thinking about it.

Another thought I've had bouncing around is an article (http://www.forwardprogressives.com/political-compass-test/) I read discussing the political compass test. The base of the Democrat party is far more to the left than most Democrat politicians. The author of this article scored far to the left, but she said,

I believe the 2nd Amendment is important but does not come without any limits.

That's good. She's in the center of gun issues, we can work with that.

It also made me think of a long article posted here (http://www.thepolemicist.net/2013/01/the-rifle-on-wall-left-argument-for-gun.html) long ago that approaches gun rights from a left-wing perspective.

So that tells us that

1. The political base that elects anti-gun politicians might not be as anti-gun as those elected.

2. If we can create a single issue coalition, we can make inroads in areas we're losing ground in.

I don't know if a non-partisan fund or PAC exists for this purpose, but if not, I started thinking of how to implement it.

Here's my thinking -

Step 1. Say I start a PAC, it costs nothing. The hardest part is making contacts and getting this out of our mind and into reality. Now that I have the structure, I talk to my friends, family, any pro-gun individual I know about this. Then, and this is important, I go to local gun shops and solicit support. Maybe we make a deal that a small amount of profit goes towards this fund, or maybe we just set up a way for customers to make voluntary donations, either way, we create institutional funding within the gun culture. This can be done on a decentralized wide-spread scale.

Step 2. Someone goes to the areas we're trying to target, say Massachusetts, or New York. They make contact with local political groups that might be receptive to a pro-gun message. Here's my caveat. The NRA is a great organization, but in these areas, they're viewed as a tool of the Republican party. Our goal will be to talk to whoever will listen, of any political persuasion in order to get them to support this fund.

The trick is tailoring the pro-gun message to different persuasions. I think this can be done. Part of what stops us now is the reasoning we use. It comes from a primarily right-wing perspective. I'd imagine that most of us at THR call ourselves conservatives or libertarians. Fine. But let me use an example. Both a socialist and a libertarian oppose Obamacare. They do so for completely different reasons. That's okay. We'll put our "why" aside and focus on action. Maybe we speak to a conservative or libertarian group and talk the usual, it probably won't be difficult to persuade them to support us.

Or maybe we talk to a progressive or socialist group, or a group of community activists in a high-crime area, and we tailor our language to them or whatever group we're speaking to. We get to the heart of their fears and why the 2nd amendment is needed to protect themselves. Maybe it's crime, or tyrannical government, or maybe it's the capitalist corporate militia of a fortune 500 bank.

If you enjoyed reading about "PACs and funds" here in TheHighRoad.org archive, you'll LOVE our community. Come join TheHighRoad.org today for the full version!
monotonous_iterancy
March 16, 2014, 06:46 PM
If we can do this, we can have our financial base in "flyover country", and have local liaisons in the targeted regions from across the political spectrum. We've stepped out of the echo chamber, and now we have money, and we have local activist proxy's, a left-right coalition. A grassroots coalition in the heart of the anti-gun territory (and anti-gun sentiment is usually found towards the political center)

What do we do with this? I'm torn between bankrolling pro-gun candidates, or education. Maybe both.

If we bankroll pro-gun candidates, we focus on political reality. We're in a region where republicans have trouble gaining traction. If they can win, fine, we'll support them. That's a long-shot though. So we bankroll pro-gun Democrats in primaries for state legislatures, we fund pro-gun sheriffs, pro-gun city officials.

OR...

We focus on education and changing hearts and minds. By having this left-right coalition, we can reach as many of the local political base as possible, and we have inroads into areas and candidates we otherwise wouldn't.

The people who swing elections are the "undecided" 20%. It seems that much pro-gun initiative is preaching to the choir. People already have preconceived notions about us. But having these local groups on our side, they know best how to frame their message to local conditions.

If we aim towards education, we use asymmetric marketing tactics. We can buy billboards, we can buy ad space, but one of the most powerful tools of persuasion is the human voice. Forget about the internet. It's great for communicating amongst ourselves and organizing, but it doesn't beat real-life.

I say we find the most rousing, stirring, hypnotic speakers and unleash them wherever we can to give pro-gun stump speeches. Maybe they owe their life to having a gun - all the more persuasive. Armed with a combination of facts, statistics, and political rhetoric from different political perspectives, they can reach various demographics. We can even put them on the street and speak in public, anywhere they can get an audience.

Here's another idea, we use the funds to purchase the copyrights of pro-gun books and pamphlets and make them available for free both online, and widely distribute them in the the real world.

_____________

I know, these are vague thought fragments, but I think it has potential. A trans-partisan grass roots movement in the northeast funded by the rest of the country. A bottom-up example of astro-turfing.

monotonous_iterancy
March 23, 2014, 07:16 PM
In hindsight, I think that "fusion" idea was probably not a very good one, and over-complicates my idea.

I still think a fund is a good idea, if something like that doesn't already exist.

CoalTrain49
June 6, 2014, 12:13 AM
I don't like PAC's. That's the problem with congress right now, too much money from groups that fund their campaigns and influencing the way they vote. They've become a bunch of prostitutes trading votes for campaign donations. Once they get into office they spend more time trying to fund their campaigns than doing the job they were elected to do. The best thing that could happen in DC is making CC legal and lobbying a congressman a crime.

If you enjoyed reading about "PACs and funds" here in TheHighRoad.org archive, you'll LOVE our community. Come join TheHighRoad.org today for the full version!