the-plan.html

---
layout: landing-newpledge
title: MAYDAY.US - The Plan To Take Our Democracy Back
omit_title_suffix: true
cssid: jgl
og_title: The Plan To Take Our Democracy Back
og_description: Here is the plan to take our Democracy Back by 2016 - but it needs your action NOW.
---

{% capture content %}

{::options parse_block_html="true" /}

# The Plan to Get Our Democracy Back

<div style="text-align:center;" class="center">
<iframe width="100%" height="324" src="//www.youtube.com/embed/wmBGfmN6uEA" frameborder="0" allowfullscreen></iframe>
</div>
Join us to support the MAYDAY movement -- make a donation with the form on the right.

---

# More Information

## Objective

The MaydayPAC is an independent political action committee (“superPAC”) that
aims to elect a Congress committed to fundamental reform in the way political
campaigns are funded by 2016. The PAC will operate in both the 2014 and 2016
election cycles. In 2014, it will pilot the idea of a superPAC pressing for fundamental
reform, by running independent campaigns in 5 districts across the country. If
successful, the PAC will organize a much larger intervention in 2016, with the
objective of electing a majority of Congress that has either cosponsored, or pledged
to support, fundamental reform of the way elections are funded.

This document is meant for those who are considering investing in this PAC. The
only possible return from our success is a representative democracy that is more
representative.

For some of our potential large donors, that would mean a democracy
less representative of their interests in particular. But we believe that for at least some of these potential donors, that personal sacrifice is consistent with their own conception of the public good. For them, the sacrifice is nothing as compared with a fireman or soldier. But for all of us, it would be an enormous contribution to our democracy.

## Background

Campaigns for the United States Congress are privately funded in America. Eighty-
five percent of that funding comes from large contributions. Candidates and political
parties target the especially large contributors in their fundraising efforts. But the
number of such contributors is tiny: No more than .05% of the American population
gives even the maximum amount to one candidate for Congress. The number
giving $10,000 or more is less than .01%.

This concentration gives the funders of political campaigns enormous power, either
directly (as direct contributors) or indirectly (through the funding secured by
lobbyists and other intermediaries). As Members of Congress become dependent
upon these funders — spending anywhere between 30% and 70% of their time
raising money — the influence of these funders grows. A trivial number of large
contributors have the capacity to block reforms that are relatively invisible to the
general public. A small number can affect the agenda of Congress or even block
reforms that are generally popular. As a recent study from Princeton concludes,
“economic elites and organized groups representing business interests have
substantial independent impacts on U.S. governmental policy, while average
citizens and mass-based interest groups have little or no independent influence.”

This dynamic is not partisan. Instead, it blocks reforms on the Left and Right. It
blocks substantial legislative initiatives — such as climate change legislation, or
meaningful health care reform. It also blocks efforts to simplify taxes or shrink the
size of government: All things being equal, complicated taxes and a more extensive
government increase the ability of Members of Congress to raise money. As Robert
Kaiser details in his book, *So Damn Much Money* (2010), that fact interferes with
the legislative agenda of the Right as much as of the Left.

The founders of the MaydayPAC believe that this dynamic has destroyed the
capacity of the United States government to govern. We believe it is critical to find a
way to change the way elections are funded, to free legislators to pursue the
reforms that motivate the voters to support them.

We have therefore established this superPAC with the objective of electing a
Congress committed to fundamental reform of the way campaigns are funded.
Based on the analysis by one of America’s most prominent political firms, we
believe we can achieve this objective by 2016.

## Our plan for reform has four stages:

1. In 2014, we will pilot the idea of a superPAC intervening in elections to support
candidates who favor reform. The objective of this pilot intervention will be to
both (a) convince Congress of the salience of this issue to voters, and (b)
determine how best to intervene to move voters on the basis of this issue.

2. Based on what we learn in 2014, in 2016 we will engage in as many races as we
need to win a majority in Congress who have either cosponsored or committed
to cosponsor fundamental reform legislation.

3. In 2017, we will then press to get Congress to pass, and the President to sign,
legislation that fundamentally reforms the way elections are funded.

4. After a Congress has been elected under this new system, we will push for
whatever constitutional reform is necessary to secure the gains from this
reform.

## “Fundamental reform in the way elections are funded”

Throughout this plan, we refer to the need for “fundamental reform in the way
elections are funded.” By this, we mean legislation that would achieve some version
of publically-funded elections.

While the MaydayPAC is agnostic about the specific legislation, we favor systems of
“small dollar public funding” of elections, (a.k.a. “citizen-funded” elections).
Such legislation can be perfectly constitutional, under the current Court’s reading of the
First Amendment. And if enacted, it would radically change the economy of
influence within Washington, DC.

There are two prominent types of “small dollar public funding”: matching system,
and vouchers.

Under a matching system, such as John Sarbanes’ (D-MD) Government By The
People Act, small dollar contributions are matched by the government, at the
extreme with a 9 to 1 match. Thus, a $100 contribution is worth $1,000 to a
candidate who funds her campaign with small contributions only.

A voucher system gives small dollar vouchers to all registered voters. Voters can
use those vouchers to contribute to candidates for Congress who restrict their
funding to vouchers only, as well as small contributions beyond vouchers.

In either case, the shift in incentives would produce a radical change in the range
and nature of “relevant funders” to congressional campaigns. If implemented
effectively, candidates for Congress could run winning campaigns without being
dependent upon large contributors. As the number of “relevant funders” increased,
the potential for any subset to block reform would be reduced. At the extreme, the
system for funding campaigns would mirror the influence of voters in an election.

These changes alone would not address the ability of either wealthy individuals or
legal entities (such as corporations or unions) to spend unlimited amounts in
political elections (a freedom secured by Buckley v. Valeo and Citizens United v.
F.E.C.). Nor would they address directly the capacity of individuals or legal entities
to contribute unlimited amounts to independent political action committees
(“superPACs”) (a freedom secured by SpeechNow v. F.E.C.). Both of these
freedoms were articulated judicially, as interpretations of the First Amendment. To
change them would require either an amendment to the Constitution, or a change
in the judicial interpretation of the First Amendment.

The founders of the MaydayPAC believe such changes may be necessary
ultimately. But we are not pursuing such changes immediately or directly, for two
different reasons.

First, constitutional change through Congress requires an infeasible super-majority.
To be proposed by Congress, an amendment requires a 2/3ds vote by each house
of Congress. We do not believe that it is plausible in the immediate term that an
amendment reversing either First Amendment freedom would secure 67 votes in
the United States Senate. Not only is there strong opposition to such reforms by
Republicans, the leading proposed amendment in the Senate is opposed by the
ACLU.

Second, it is not yet clear that constitutional reform will even be necessary. It is
unlikely, without a change in the composition of the Court, that either Citizens
United or Buckley will be reversed. But the case establishing the freedom to contribute
unlimited amounts to independent political action committees was not reviewed by the Supreme
Court. Because the Court has treated the standard
governing the regulation of contributions differently from expenditures, we believe it
is still possible for the Court to uphold the power of Congress to limit contributions
to independent political action committees (thereby eliminating so called
“superPACs”). Given the relatively small role that independent expenditures—
unrelated to superPACs—play in the current system, that change alone may be
enough to secure—with the correct system of public funding—a Congress no
longer pathologically dependent on large funders.

Given the current activism of the Supreme Court, however, we are not confident of
this result. An amendment may well be ultimately necessary. But we believe that an
essential step toward making any amendment possible is the election of a
Congress no longer dependent on large funders. Thus, we envision the possible
need for constitutional reform in stage four of this plan.

## Stage 1: A pilot campaign in 2014

The single most important fact blocking the possibility of reform is the view among
both experts and many in the general public that voters will not respond to the
issue of corruption with enough force to matter. All concede that voters identify
“money in politics” as an important issue that needs to be reformed. But most
believe that voters do not vote on the basis of “money in politics,” and so most
believe it is unlikely to be an issue that will be reformed.

We acknowledge the dominance of this view. We believe it is mistaken. The
objective of our campaign in 2014 is thus to prove that this view is wrong, by
running five campaigns in a wide range of districts on the basis of this issue — and
winning.

We will select these five districts with two objectives in view.

First, we must select districts where a victory would be both surprising,
and understood to be tied to this reform. We are not looking for easy
victories; nor are we looking for races in which different issues compete,
and would make identifying the reason for victory difficult. We are looking
for districts in which a victory would signal that conventional wisdom was
wrong: that voters, that is, could be mobilized on the basis of this issue
enough to dislodge even dominant incumbents.

Second, we must select a sufficiently wide range of districts so as to
provide enough diversity to make valid the inferences we need to draw
about other districts. Our campaigns will establish a baseline of attitudes
before and after our intervention; we will track the effectiveness of those
interventions to “move the needle” of attitudes related to reform. And we’ll
experiment with a wide range of techniques for engaging nontraditional
voters to support candidates tied to reform.

Based on the recommendations of the MaydayPAC’s political director, and the
available resources, the Board will choose the target districts for this pilot by July
15. The political director will then retain the appropriate firms to execute the five
campaigns. While the primary objective in 2014 is to win in these five races, to the
extent feasible, these campaigns will experiment with a range of potential
techniques. It is our view that to win on this issue ultimately, we will need to identify
new techniques that can bring new voters into the political process. But in the short term,
we need to use whatever techniques we can to win.

## Stage 2: A campaign to win a reform Congress in 2016

Based on the results in 2014, we will determine whether a campaign to win a
Congress committed to fundamental reform in 2016 is feasible. If it is, then early in
2015, we will (1) initiate a strategy to minimize the number of seats that we must
win, and (2) begin planning a campaign that could, in fact, win.

We will minimize the number of seats that we must win by building a strong
grassroots movement to persuade incumbents to cosponsor fundamental reform. If
we are successful in 2014, we can channel the energy from that victory into efforts
to convince incumbents to commit to reform. Key among the strategies that we will
deploy are campaigns to recruit “the funders” to refuse to contribute to candidates
who have not committed to fundamental reform. We expect that over 2015, we can
recruit a significant portion of the majority we will need in 2017. No doubt, we will
still need to defeat a large number of incumbents in the 2016 election. But that
number can be reduced significantly.

The remaining gap will determine the size of the 2016 campaign. At the high end,
we estimate that number will be between 10-15 races in the Senate, and 50-65
races in the House. A campaign that large will require a proportionally larger amount of
money - which we will fund through a mix of crowdfunded small contributions, and larger
matching contributions.

## Stage 3: Enacting Reform

Once we have elected a Congress committed to reform, we will organize a 100 day
campaign in the beginning of 2017 to get that reform passed. Obviously, the
feasibility of moving legislation through Congress will depend upon the new
President, and the control of Congress. But we believe that if we have achieved
victory in stage 2, there will be enormous pressure on Congress to legislate quickly.

The MaydayPAC will leverage the momentum from 2016 to build a campaign to
pass reform legislation.

## Stage 4: Securing Reform through a Constitutional Amendment

A key element to the legislation that we see enacted will be a provision that tests
the constitutional status of the superPAC. As described above, the Supreme Court
has not yet addressed whether the First Amendment gives individuals or legal
entities the right to contribute unlimited amounts to independent political action
committees. We believe that question should be pressed on the Court, and envision
the legislation providing fast track review.

While the process of that review continues, the MaydayPAC will work with existing
organizations to leverage its victory to support whatever revision of the constitution
is necessary to secure that reform. At a minimum, if the Court upholds the
superPAC, that reform must secure the legislative power to assure broad and
meaningful participation by Americans in the funding of elections. Changes beyond
these will depend upon the nature of the Court, and the results of the first “clean
election” for Congress in 2018. The MaydayPAC would make any necessary
constitutional reform an issue in 2018, and pursue that reform however it makes
most sense — whether through Congress, or a proposing convention, as described
in Article V of the Constitution.

## Funding

There are many hopeful assumptions built into this four-stage plan. But we will only
raise funds as those assumptions become probable. Based on our analysis, we
believe we can win 5 significant victories in 2014. We are therefore currently raising
the funds for Stage 1 only.

Critical to our funding strategy is a two-step crowdfunded and contingent match.
We have set two funding targets — $1 million and $5 million. For each, we have run
“kickstart” campaigns, raising small and medium dollar pledges to meet each
target. Our first campaign to raise $1M launched on May 1, 2014, and we met the
target 19 days before the deadline, on May 13th.  We launched our second campaign to
raise $5M on June 4th, and we met that goal 9 hours before the deadline, at 9:00 p.m. EST, July 4th, 2014

Now we will secure matching funds, bringing our total amount raised to over $12M dollars.

Once matching funds are secured, our fundraising for this cycle will end. The PAC will
then turn its focus to the campaigns exclusively.


{% endcapture %}

{% include pledgeSubpage-newpledge.html %}