Date: Tue, 31 May 1994 16:29:08 -0700 From: Jim Warren Subject: GovAccess.038: ACTION ALERT - Needed action impacting the nation May 31 1994 [ This is longer than I intended, as a "relatively-brief personal election- related advocacy." But it includes much of what I intended to put in 039-040, and I also realized this could be a "tutorial-by-example" - illustrating the techniques I used to help push AB1624 through the California Legislature, last year. Curse its length; praise that 039 and 040 will be "back on topic." Also, I'm still backlogged in my email; phone of fax if urgent. --jim ] PARTICIPATING (NOW!) IN THE PROCESS OF OUR OWN GOVERNANCE - BY EXAMPLE The vision thing: Access to government is *NOT* primarily so we can learn the whims and dictates of our incumbent Masters - as joyful and fearful, but always-obedient serfs. Access to government is primarily so we may effectively *participate* in the process of our own governance. The operational principles: GovAccess.027 offered nuts-n-bolts generic details of how one might pursue powerful, effective, net-based, computer-aided GRASSROOTS political action (also published in the Apr/May issue of BoardWatch magazine, reaching about 60,000 bulletin-board sysops and users). The method uses the essential tools of *all* effective citizen action: * Person-to-person, "word of mouth" personal advocacy, always most powerful. * Timely access to verifiable information on which to base political actions. * Timely mass communications, *always* essential to coordinate and effect informed action by the sovereign body politic. The operational example: The following exemplifies a *partial* implementation. (Full implementation would include *much* greater net-aided coordination, and *much* more outreach from those on the net to citizens who are not [yet] users of our *modern* news and information media.) This illustrates a possible [hopefully-effective] advocacy statement, and how one might encourage its maximum distribution and impact. Incidentally, although I've been writing since 1975 (and taught for ten years, earlier), it still took three tries and more than two days for me to draft this missive. (It *ain't* easy to draft an effective[?] advocacy statement.) Full disclosure, plus apologies: And: This is *most-definitely* ardent personal political advocacy on my part, virulently-biased by what I've learned and views I hold (as is *always* true of advocacy :-). I encourage you to equally-advocate *your* views. Advance apologies: Some of you who receive GovAccess may also receive the following as a separate message, though I will try to avoid dups. But, time's too tight for everlate-me to do the massive merge-purge of the GovAccess list with my numerous other e-lists - as I *should* do. My sincere apologies as a most-imperfect person. Flame me at will. &&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&& A TIME-SENSITIVE PERSONAL-ADVOCACY MESSAGE TO ONLINE CONTACTS Subject: An URGENT request that you act, NOW! (if you agree :-) Hi - I apologize for inflicting this on you without first verifying that you're interested, but it's so important that I'm risking your ire and your flames. But at least most of it's an optional explanatory "footnote." I'm writing to solicit your action regarding some June 7th election issues. [Suspicion-flags instantly appear.] Unless you have sound reasons for doing otherwise, if you're in California [I'm sending this to a number of folks], I hope you will: * Support TONY MILLER for the California SECRETARY OF STATE, Or at least, OPPOSE Gwen Moore for Secy of State (reasons follow). * Support TOM HAYDEN as Democratic GOVERNOR nominee, at least as a protest. * Support RON UNZ as the Republican GOVERNOR nominee, as a protest vote. * Support PHIL ANGELIDES for Calif. TREASURER, as a protest against Roberti. And if you are NOT in Californica [sic :-) ], I hope you will circulate this msg to everyone you know who *is* in California. *Their* decisions well may impact *you* - for better or worse. For example, the tax revolts of the late '70s began with Calif's Prop.13, and the mandate for online access to state legislation created by Calif's AB 1624 in 1993 is now proposed in about a dozen other states - with imprefections inflicted by some of these folks. It would also help if you wrote a *brief* letter to the editor of your local newspapers - about these candidates/issues, and/or also giving them a "heads up" about the growth of net-aided access to government. Many thanks for your attention. Hope you'll act. SOON! --jim Jim Warren, columnist for MicroTimes, Government Technology, BoardWatch, etc. jwarren@well.com (also, jwarren@autodesk.com, but not for political msgs) 345 Swett Rd., Woodside CA 94062; voice/415-851-7075; fax/415-851-2814 [If you're interested in computer-aided government-access, I'd be delighted to add you to my GovAccess distribution-list; one or a few notices per week.] P.S. - OPTIONAL READING If you are hesitant about my recommendations - or just want to be infuriated by the stunts of career politicians :-) ... I hadn't planned to pursue any public advocacy re these June 7th elections. But as you may know, I spent much of last year as a flaming open-government advocate, pushing [successfully] to mandate online-access to legislation. And, this year, I'm pushing for online campaign-finance disclosures . In that process, I've learned far more than I could ever have known from the "outside," about state government and its players - good and bad. And recent events added to the outrages of last year have pushed me off my arse and into this action: REGARDING THE SECRETARY OF STATE -- this is the Office that accepts political-disclosure filings. The SoS can either encourage and facilitate public access, or make "mere" citizens' access *very* difficult. TONY MILLER became Acting Secretary of State early this year. Since then, he has asked statewide candidates to voluntarily file their required disclosures in digital form. He is *vigorously* supporting legislation (Senate Bill 758, by Hayden) to *require* computerized filings and net-based public access. And, he is making state election-night vote-results available online -- which I believe is a "first" in the nation. Miller is the *only* candidate for Secretary of State (a $32.6-million agency) who has significant administrative experience, a career administrator rather than career politician. He was also a founding member of the Fair Political Practices Commission. He was Chief Deputy Secy of State for 13+ years, after being SoS Chief Legal Counsel beginning in 1976. Miller is also urging that the Secy of State be made a non-partisan office - a *much*-needed change for this administrative post. And, unlike some other operations in Sacramento, the Secy of State's office has *not* been involved in major corruption or waste scandals. In contrast (as detailed in the 5/19 issue of the Sacramento News & Review), GWEN MOORE's hand-picked, personally-supervised senior staffer was busted by the FBI in 1988 and was sentenced to four years on corruption charges. SN&R reports some of his *appalling* taped statements to undercover agents as he demanded more money in exchange for their special-interest legislation, that Gwen Moore then authored and carried. (There was insufficient evidence to indict her - except, at the least, for *abysimal* staff choice and oversight.) Perhaps a slow learner, Moore in 1993 authored and carried special-interest legislation exempting United Parcel Service from PUC regulations. SN&R (much of the issue was devoted to political corruption) reported that UPS never before contributed to Moore's campaigns, but gave her $3,000 days after she got the legislature to pass their bill, another $1,000 immediately after it was signed into law, and then waited until the first month of the next reporting period to give her another $4,000, plus $1,756 in non-monetary "contributions." Politics-as-usual in Kickback City. Please note: The Secy of State's office handles *massive* filings by wealthy corporations and businesses, as well as huge campaign-finance disclosures - to name *part* of their responsibilities. THE LAST STRAW - that pushed me into this advocacy: Until a few weeks ago, Moore appeared to have little chance of becoming Secy of State. The race was between Acting SoS Tony Miller and Mike Woo, a powerful Los Angeles career politician with no administrative experience but a huge ability to raise loot (*much* more largess than administrator Miller has been able to raise). As reported in mid-May in the Sacramento Bee, SF Chronicle and SF Examiner, Woo paid gubernatorial-candidate Kathleen Brown's campaign manager $90,000 to be recommended for Secy of State in the "California Democratic Voter Checklist" statewide mailer. But Assembly Speaker Willie Brown - who had appointed Moore to her powerful (profitable?) position Chairing the Utilities and Commerce Committee - reportedly insisted that the checklist recommend Gwen Moore for SoS, or he wouldn't endorse Kath.Brown (no relation). Done! Well, this here little E-mailer ain't goin' to millions, and I'm not gettin' paid to send it, but maybe the net has some grassroots clout of its own. REGARDING THE GOVERNOR'S RACE, State Treasurer Kathleen Brown (Jerry Brown's sister), Insurance Commissioner John Garamendi and State Senator Tom Hayden (yes, the ex- Mr. Fonda :-) are seeking the Democratic nomination for Guv. Kath.Brown has a 20-point lead, obviously a shoo-in. Hayden reportedly doesn't have a chancenhell. Let's use the situation to deliver some messages: Note: Until last year, as a naive outsider I was so impressed by Kath. Brown that I seriously considered volunteering to set up a "net presence" for her campaign. But then I learned more from public-interest sources in Sacramento. As Treasurer, Kath. Brown took over $800,000 from investment and bond firms seeking business from her Office - known in the bond industry as "pay to play" (see San Jose Mercury News, 5/29/94; even so, SJMN is recommending her). Brown didn't stop until about the time the SEC halted the practice (now being appealed by another state's Democratic Party Chair). I think this *sucks*! Additionally, Garamendi and Hayden have voluntarily filed their campaign- finance reports in computer form, while Kathleen Brown has refused to even acknowledge Secy of State Tony Miller's repeated requests. Small wonder. Hayden's primary platform focuses on the need for campaign-finance reform. Having seen it operating, up close and odious, I agree that special-interest loot is *THE* single greatest danger to responsible government. Hayden is also the author of SB 758 that would require online computerized political disclosures, with almost no cost to tax-payers or candidates. The REPUBLICAN Gov's race is a shoo-in for incumbent Pete Wilson - giving another opportunity for a protest vote. Wilson has repeatedly failed to file his campaign-finance disclosures in computer form. And his DMV and Office of Information Technology Director are in the middle of an outrageous mess involving $44-million in worthless computers, with investigations of possible wrong-doing now underway. Computer entrepreneur Ron Unz is the only useful challanger to Wilson - spending millions of his own [earned!] money to take Wilson to task, and he offers to serve for a dollar-a-year . These are the reasons I'm urging votes for Hayden (Democratic nominee) and Unz (Republican nominee) *AND* that each of us TELL THE CANDIDATES who are online the reason(s) for the protest votes: Gov. Pete Wilson: PeteWilson@delphi.com Kathleen Brown: katbrown@netcom.com Tom Hayden campaign: reform94@delphi.com also: SB 758 support msgs: darryl.young@sen.ca.gov [Hayden legislative staffer] You are welcome to use any or all of this in your email to anyone. Lastly, REGARDING THE CALIFORNIA TREASURER'S RACE. The Democratic primary is essentially between business-person and state Party chair Phil Angelides, and multi-decade state politician Dave Roberti, former Leader (dictator!) of the state Senate - now seeking some other office in the face of term-limits. Roberti was the one who placed most of the Senators who were convicted in the FBI's 1988 corruption sting in the powerful positions from which they peddled their influence - and Roberti *ain't* dumb. He recently beat back an effort to recall him, but by much less of a winning margin than a 28-year legislative veteran in a 2/3-Democratic liberal district should have received. And now Roberti wants to take over Kathleen Brown's *lucrative* position as unseen Treasurer. I bet the pay-to-play bonds brokers can hardly wait! - and the rest of us can pay and pay and pay higher taxes for higher interest-rates. Additionally, it was Roberti that smoothly slipped in the only serious degradations that were inflicted on AB 1624 last year, which now limit *all* of us online, to less than optimal access to legislative information, AND are too-often being reproduced in other states' online-legislation proposals. Thus, I'm recommending the only viable alternative Treasurer, PHIL ANGELIDES. Nuf sed! Again, my apologies for this unsolicited "political" message, but I feel it is a *crucial* good-government issue; decisions with national impact. And I *grovelingly* apologize for the length of the "post-script" - but I felt it was only fair to tell you *why* I was advocating my positions. At least the electrons are fully recyclable. &&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&& THE OPERATIONAL COMPONENTS OF THE ADVOCACY MESSAGE ["HOW TO"] 1. The subject-line solicits immediate attention, but requires that the recipient read at least the first part of the message to find out what it concerns - which could not be adequately described in a one-line "Subject." 2. The opening paragraph is an appropriate (and sincere) apology. 3. The next part *briefly* states the primary requests, including who, what, when, where and sorta-why - but as gentle requests; not zealous "demands." If folks know and trust you (me) and don't have strong reasons for different action, the request may be sufficient cause for them to act as you (I) ask. 4. The next parts are less-important requests, and an apparent "close" for recipients who remain uninterested. 5. The "post-script" part is *VERY* important, especially in any political advocacy [always-suspicious]: It gives information supporting the advocacy AND means for its independent verification. And it's provocatively stated, hoping to incite action. The entire message alternates between evident personal zeal/fury and softening and/or self-effacing humor. I happen to think the latter helps (others disagree); either way, both components are my well-known personal style. Note: I'm explaining why I wrote how I wrote, both as "how to" suggestions for your possible use, and because I am completely comfortable with everyone knowing exactly how and why I've written as I've written. No deceptions. Mount the ramparts, folks! Join me in virulent personal political action. Let us honor our heritage - we use it or we loose it. Mo' as it Is. --jim Jim Warren, columnist for MicroTimes, Government Technology, BoardWatch, etc. 345 Swett Rd., Woodside CA 94062; voice/415-851-7075; fax/415-851-2814 >> To join or drop the GovAccess list, email to jwarren@well.sf.ca.us . << >> Permission herewith granted for unlimited reposting and recirculation. <<