Re: RESPOND ASAP - DAR language

All, having digested the pros and cons of the trigger, I am fine with either strategy. Susan

On Tue, Dec 20, 2016 at 5:44 PM, Bill Conner <annapolis13315@gmail.com> wrote:

Hank makes some good points, but on balance I still think that we are better off holding the trigger for potential use during the session. 

Here is my reaction to some of the concerns that Hank offered:

• Concern: "To "lever the legislation out of committee" implies that we are equal negotiators with a reluctant committee, uncooperative committee chair or oppositional leadership office.  We are not equal to any of those things.  We are not perceived by any entity as having any "bargaining chips" in our arsenal."
  
  
• Agreed, we are not going to be sitting at a negotiating table as equal players.  Most likely if Busch is on board there will not be any uncooperative committee chair or reluctant committee on the House side.  And we will be trying to whip the vote count in the committees and trying to understand the concerns of non-supporters who might be swayed to support (fence-sitters, not ideologues).  If these folks have certain types of concerns about the process (e.g., it's safer for Congress to do the drafting), that's when we could work with key allies or sponsors on the committee to have them introduce the trigger into the committee discussions as a middle-ground solution. Maybe I'm wrong, but this seems like a plausible business model to me.
  
  
• Concern: "bringing up the trigger at a late stage of the session to "lever it out of committee" will require a full scale education process to explain to all the members of the Rules and/or EHEA Committees what the trigger is, how it will work and why it is a better choice than just ignoring us for another year, at which time we can come back with a trigger that people understand."
  
  
• I think that the trigger is pretty straight-forward and could be easily explained during the committee process among members and staff.  They sure acted effectively in using a committee amendment to gut the legislation in 2015.  So I think that they should be able to act effectively if a change is offered that eases the concerns of fence-sitters in committee.
  
  
• As far as educating the members beyond the committees, I really don't think that's going to be necessary.  Based on the 2015 experience, I think that if a floor vote is allowed, the bill will pass in both houses along party lines, or close to it.
  
  
• Concern: "Thirdly, I want to emphasize the original point I made, that of presenting TWO POTENTIAL PATHS to success to overrule Citizens United, and acknowledge that the Congressional approach, while preferable in the face of "runaway fears', is not likely to be possible in the next 2 or 4 or possibly 8 years, and the DUAL PATH Resolution will not require any re-education late in the session."
  
  
• First, there are two potential paths with or without the trigger, as long as we pass the legislation.  As argued above, I think that the education can happen efficiently within the committee process if we have strong allies to work the committee.  The counter-argument is that if we include the trigger now, it will require a greater effort for education early in the process, probability involving complicated explanations with a greater number of lawmakers.  In my view, the trigger is most powerful when proposed as a solution during a negotiation.
  

• Concern:  "Finally, the Resolution WITH the trigger presents the combination of arguments and paths that will likely avoid the possibility of two, different competing proposals in the Resolution text in the House & the Senate."
  
  
• I just don't know why this would be true. Nobody can predict what amendments might be offered in committee or in the floor debate.  If we offer the trigger now, opponents will come up with other reasons to oppose.  If we hold it back, we have a ready-made solution to one of the more probable arguments that will be used.

Bill

On Tue, Dec 20, 2016 at 4:15 PM, Hank Prensky <hprensky@rcn.com> wrote:

All

I want to disagree with Bill's (usually sound) logic:  To "lever the legislation out of committee" implies that we are equal negotiators with a reluctant committee, uncooperative committee chair or oppositional leadership office.  We are not equal to any of those things.  We are not perceived by any entity as having any "bargaining chips" in our arsenal.

Additionally, bringing up the trigger at a late stage of the session to "lever it out of committee" will require a full scale education process to explain to all the members of the Rules and/or EHEA Committees what the trigger is, how it will work and why it is a better choice than just ignoring us for another year, at which time we can come back with a trigger that people understand.

Thirdly, I want to emphasize the original point I made, that of presenting TWO POTENTIAL PATHS to success to overrule Citizens United, and acknowledge that the Congressional approach, while preferable in the face of "runaway fears', is not likely to be possible in the next 2 or 4 or possibly 8 years, and the DUAL PATH Resolution will not require any re-education late in the session.  

Finally, the Resolution WITH the trigger presents the combination of arguments and paths that will likely avoid the possibility of two, different competing proposals in the Resolution text in the House & the Senate.

Cheers,

Hank

Hank@TakomaHomes.com

Mobile Phone: 301-455-4427

On Dec 20, 2016, at 12:48 PM, Bill Conner <annapolis13315@gmail.com> wrote:

Trigger provision:  I prefer to hold the trigger provision to lever the legislation out of committee, or if necessary, for potential negotiations  between House and Senate versions.  If we include the trigger at the outset, we lose this bargaining chip and get nothing for it.

Remove "political":  The context in the bill is: "...to propose an amendment to the U.S. Constitution that affirms every citizen's individual right to vote, reserves inalienable political rights to natural persons,..."  It seems like "political" is the key word here for this legislation and maybe "inalienable" should be removed.  I suggest that we consult with a lawyer to see if there are any unexpected implications one way or the other before making a final decision.  If there are no legal implications, I would support either wording.

Another Thing:  At the end of the bill, it speaks of process and where the bill would be transmitted when passed.  Because of the election, some of the players have changed (e.g., Joe Biden will no longer be VP, CVH is now a senator, etc.)  At some point, someone needx to clean this up so that it is current.

Bill

On Tue, Dec 20, 2016 at 6:49 AM, Charlie Cooper <charlie.coop47@gmail.com> wrote:

Here are the notes from the legislative work plan:

1/21/2021 would be the trigger date. 11-year anniversary of Citizens United. Propose trigger to the sponsor. Charlie suggests remove "political" from "inalienable political rights" in the first RESOLVED clause of DAR.

 

I would also add that we must add in Rhode Island to the list of states we intend to align with (near the bottom of page 2).

 

Therefore, please vote on the following:

1.      Include the trigger provision. I'm not sure why we would offer this after our meeting with Busch. They didn't raise it. I think Wylie should try to reach Jeremy as he has not responded to my e-mail, and I'm not sure he received it.  _____ Yes      _____ No

 

2.     Remove "p0litical" from "inalienable political rights."  _____ Yes      _____ No

 

 

Charlie Cooper

H: 410-578-8291

C: 410-624-6095

www.getmoneyoutmd.org  <image001.jpg>

 

"We may have democracy, or we may have wealth concentrated in the hands of a few, but we can't have both." – Louis Brandeis