View source for Ideas Candidate, Elections, and Occupy Discussion 2/8/2012

This wasn't a formal ideas working group meeting.  Instead, five us of
got together to talk about political candidates, the Occupy Movement,
and the relationship between them.  What follows is a summary of
that conversation.

<center>* * *</center>

There are a lot of different philosophies about how we should interact
with candidates and politicians; it would be good to form some kind of
policy for this.  Although we dislike the system, we'll need to work
within it in order to effect certain kinds of changes; if we don't,
then we're stuck on the outside.  What's the point in asking our
elected officials to do things that they are never going to do?

We can address injustice from the outside, and lobby effectively from
the inside.

Some folks in the OccupyMBTA group are interested in approaching
legislators, to discuss and/or lobby for alternative solutions to the
MBTA budget problems.

Politicians do participate in Occupy Boston events (e.g., several events
sponsored by the Citizen's United WG).
We shouldn't shut them out.  However, we can set ground
rules for how we'd like them to act at Occupy events (e.g.,
non-partisianship).  We should also ask for disclosure -- people who
are candidates or elected officials should say that they are
candidates or elected officials.

The League of Women voters has a tradition of holding non-partisian
policical forums.  These forums are focused on issues.  We should care
about knowing where candidates stand, and we should care about how
they'll vote when elected.  Occupy could sponsor non-partisian forums,
to discuss issues that are important to the movement.  Many
legislators believe that the Occupy movement is influencial.  That
gives us some leverage to approach legislators, and ask them to
collaborate with us in finding solutions to problems.  We should be
prepared to offer solutions.

Elected officials need engaged citizens in order to motivate them.

Every legislator cares about reelection, reelection, reelection.
They're all part of the same system.  We can leverage this through
petitions.  For example, suppose we want a legislator to take up an
issue.  If we can get a statistically significant number of voters
from that legislators district to sign on, then they'll be forced to
take up the issue -- because it could influence their reelection.

The Occupy movement has a chance to correct some of the problems with
our political system.

Occupy appears to have arrived at consensus on one issue: we should
not endorse political candidates.

What kind of ground rules could we have (for politicans and
candidates) at occupy events?  Some suggestions:

* They cannot ask for political donations at occupy events.
* They cannot do solicitous campaigning at occupy events.
* They cannot distribute campaign literature at occupy events
* Occupy is non-partisian, so candidates and politicians should behave in a non-partisian manner.  (i.e., stay focused on issues).
* Perhaps something to address conflicts of interest.


Should Occupy Boston develop an ethics policy?

When approaching candidates and politicans, we should have two game
plans: one short-term (immediate needs), and one long-term (bigger,
broader objectives).  Ideally, these two plans should be developed and
executed by two different groups.

Can we compare the Occupy movement to the Tea Party?  Both movements
grew out of dissatisfaction, and both started at the grass roots
level.  Today, the tea party has many politicans in office, and
they're heavily dependent on corporate money.  We do not want Occupy
to be influenced by corporate money.

The real revolution will be to Occupy our Democracy.  Why aren't we
filling the legislative halls with more civicly-engaged students?
Students shouldn't be afraid to challenge legislators.

[[Category:Ideas WG]]