if you play the video, i'd suggest listening via your headphones. i still haven't figured out the optimal sound recording setting on the camera, and this sounds like crud on speakers. regardless, it's interesting for the visuals. it's beck performing "clap hands" with a short interlude from "one foot in the grave". pics are here.
i just had to post this up because everyone on the planet should read the conclusion to attaturk's brilliant "the wankery" series. he's compiled all four parts into one massive post. i swear it is the funniest thing i have read in months. be careful, it is "pee your pants funny".
I got a phone call late last week from one of my friends who is currently toiling in the service of a congressional candidate here in Texas. This person told me some truly shocking news: The Texas Democratic party charges our candidates for access to that Voter File they were bragging about during the convention. I was shocked to hear this because the party used to give our candidates free access to the old voter database.
Charging our candidates for this access is completely boneheaded, and I propose that the first thing that we change about this party is the policy of charging our candidates for access to the Voter File.
After I received that phone call, I sent out an email blast asking for input and opinions on this troubling policy. I received quite a few emails back from other people working for state level and federal level candidates in Texas. They all told me the same troubling story, and some elaborated on just how boneheaded this policy has become. I'll get to that in a moment, but first here are the facts as I know it.
The TDP currently charges our candidates 20% of the fair market value for the data, and gives the other 80% as an in-kind contribution. The dollar figure for that 20% varies from race to race. I heard numbers as low as $85 and as high as $2000 from campaign workers I spoke to over the weekend. In addition, the TDP has in some cases not been upfront about charging for this access. I was told by two sources that the agreement a campaign has to sign in order to get access to the Voter File does not mention charges until page six. Basically, it's buried and the TDP isn't advertising the fact that they are charging candidates. I'm still looking to get a copy of the agreement and will post it if someone sends it to me (confidentiality is assured).
I know of one particularly eggregious case where the charges were sprung on a primary candidate literally one day before their access was cut off. I have also been told of a case where a TDP staffer (who shall remain nameless - for now) made some nasty phone calls to a candidate when they noticed a spike in activity on their logins. I've been told this spike occurred because staffers realised their access was about to be cut off and they didn't want to lose the data they were already sifting through, so they downloaded the whole file for their district. While you may not agree with their solution, I believe it was a sensible move considering that they were being threatened with losing access to the most valuable tool any campaign in Texas can utilise for voter identification.
It is my assertion that the TDP should provide free and unfettered access to the Voter File to any Democratic candidate in the state of Texas. I propose that we as a communinty - the netroots, grassroots, and reformers - unite to make this happen.
Over the past few days I have heard a myriad of excuses defending TDP's decision to charge candidates for this access. .
The most frequent excuse that people have brought up is money. It cost money to build the Voter File and it costs money to maintain it. Some reminded me that the TDP is broke. I've also heard that the TDP is charging for this file due to some sort of agreement they have with the vendor who supplied the data (although I have no further details on what sort of agreement may or may not exist). You know what? Blah blah blah. It's just more excuses.
You want to talk about money? How's this: The TDP is not giving any financial support directly to candidates during this election cycle. The very least they could do is provide free and unfettered access to the Voter File.
And furthermore, the main thing I heard from every TDP staff/elected official during the convention was how badly the party needs money. As I see it, there is little incentive to give money. After all, even former TDP consultants say the TDP is irrelevant. So why should I waste precious resources on contributing to a party that can't seem to produce tangible evidence that I should do so? Thanks to ActBlue and the internet, I can easily give my money to candidates of my choosing and I don't even have to spend money on a stamp.
Economics 101: incentives drive consumer demand.
I propose that the TDP needs to give people an incentive to donate. "Wanting to beat Republicans" isn't enough. If the TDP gave our candidates free access to the voter file, that is a huge fundraising incentive. The TDP could then go to the people - our base, the grassroots - and say, "If you give us money, this is where it's going. It's going to help ALL of our candidates." That is a real, tangible action that donors can feel good about supporting.
That incentive also allows the small donor - such as those recently tapped by recent campaigns and the DNC, and long-courted by the Republicans in their successful fundraising drives - to feel as though their dollar goes further.
Others I spoke to felt that 80% in kind contributions were generous.
I sympathise with that argument, but I'd like to point out that some campaigns really can't afford to spend even $85 on access. If we are going to get serious about the 50 state strategy, then we have to realise that until donors have enough incentive to fund the party, some of our candidates will lack serious resources. For example, I'm sure there are campaigns out in rural Texas that spend less than $2000 per cycle. For Democrats in those places, it's really a struggle. Hell, it's a struggle for some campaigns in urban areas. In those type of races, every penny counts. Maybe an $85 maildrop to every registered Democrat in Pecos county would put one of our folks over the top. So forgive me if the "generosity" excuse doesn't seem to outweigh my concerns.
Furthermore, it's been pointed out to me that the Voter File is a precious resource, and as such are not free. Indeed I would argue that it is precisely because of it's value that our candidates should be able to freely access it.
Having now spent three election cycles volunteering for campaigns, I've learned that one of the very first things you have to do is identify your constituency. You've got to know who's doors to knock on and who's to skip, who to mailbomb and who to forget. Without such comprehensive information, a campaign must waste time and money compiling information which should be made readily available to them. I can't stress this enough, and I'm sure that other people who've worked on campaigns would agree with me.
We must give our candidates access to this valuable campaign tool, and we must do it now. Refusing to change this wrongheaded policy would prove that the TDP is truly out of touch with it's grassroots and it's base.
The state chair's election proved that there are two distinct factions within the party. I believe there is at least some overlap in goals among those factions. I hope that both Richie supporters and the reformers who backed Maxey, Urbina-Jones, and Rodgers share at least one common goal: challenging Republicans everywhere. I know the reformers get that, and I do know that at least some of the Richie folks get it as well. But I am honestly asking if there are enough Richie supporters out there who will stand with the reformers and demand that the party do the right thing for our team.
We have an election to win in November, and we can't be handicapping our candidates at this point. If there is a candidate out there who has not been able to come up with funds to pay for access, I believe it's time to write it off and give it to them for free. And afterwards, send out a fundraising pitch to the triple Ds and tell them what you did. Trust me TDP you will get the money.
I will go so far as to say that if the TDP changes it's policy and begins giving free access to the Voter File, I will become a sustaining member. Period. And I am sure I'm not the only one. If the TDP could recruit a few hundred sustaining members, the problem of paying for maintaining the Voter File is solved. That would be one less financial worry for the party, and we could move on to expanding the playing field for Democrats.
Now I'm sure that there is some policy that currently prevents this from happening. I don't know what it is. There's nothing in the rules or platform, and nothing posted about it on the TDP website either. All I know for sure is that this is a recent change.
I'm mainly putting up this post as an FYI so that the texroots will be aware of this crap. I am going to call my SDEC members (all SDEC contact info is posted here) and ask them if they can provide me with this policy in writing. I'm also going to try and find out how we change this. We don't have much time and our candidates need our help. And even if we do not succeed in this election cycle, perhaps we can craft a long term plan for changing this boneheaded policy so that our future candidates will not be handicapped by lack of access to the Voter File.
update: After I finished composing this entry, I received a copy of the pertinent paperwork. You can download the License Agreement here and the Online Voter File Use Policy here. Notice that the fees are not mentioned until section F of the paperwork. I was also told by a source that this paperwork was sent in an email without a subject. I don't know about you, but if I wanted to get someone's attention, I'd put a subject in the email or flag the email as "urgent". BTW, here is a chart of the fee scale:
Now I'll tell you something that should trip the outrage-o-meter. I was also told by another source who is in a position to know that the current version of the Voter File does not contain any information from the Constitutional Amendment election (or *any* amendment election, for that matter), nor does it contain any 2006 Primary data for over 90% of Texas counties. WTF??? My source explained that when they asked why the Primary data was not included, they were told that, "We didn't bother to collect those counties' primary data because we don't have contested races there." As my source said, tell that to the statewide candidates! For them *every county* is a contested county! This is also an issue I'll be raising w/my SDEC representatives, and I urge the texroots to do the same.
I'll be following up on this as more information becomes available.
via mydd, it begins:
Shaw Communications and its Canada-based cable MSO subsidiary have filed a series of court documents that aim to "set to record straight" regarding a "Quality of Service Enhancement" package being offered to Vonage customers and customers of other third-party VoIP services that leverage the public Internet.The documents, filed in the Alberta Court of Queen's Bench in Calgary, note that Shaw's IP-based phone service is offered over the operator's QoS-enabled, managed network, while Vonage's service travels the public Internet and is open to packet delays and other "inherent limitations."
Shaw reiterated that its high-speed data customers who also use the Vonage service can take the QoS Enhancement service on a completely optional basis. The enhancement runs $10 per month.
Vonage has previously complained of the tactic, referring to it as a "thinly-veiled VoIP tax," and has since requested that the Canadian Radio-Television & Telecommunications Commission step in to investigate the matter.
news link via CED broadband magazine. it's time to make the phone calls, if you haven't already.
