Chet Campanella talks about H.R. 1706 and H.R. 1707, (Mistreatment of Italian Americans during WWII) These are bills in the 115th Congress; To authorize the Secretary of Education to provide grants for education programs on the history of the treatment of Italian Americans during World War II and to apologize for the treatment of Italian Americans during World War II.

iLobby Mission

We help voters figure out their stories so that they can change laws

because your present policy decisions shape your political and

economic future. We want to empower you to change laws so that you

can improve your community, influence your country and impact the

world.

This podcast is about how to change a law using iLobby. It is based on

the book How to Change a Law. http://amzn.to/1XyrWu6

You can learn how to vote, argue, debate, pledge and share a campaign

at the iLobby free video proving ground. http://bit.ly/28MQ0qW

-- Transcript (partial) --

The Party Is Not Much of A Party

The party is a brand. But all brands need to evolve. As brands, the Democratic Party and the Republican Party do not adapt and change quickly enough to meet the needs of their audience. Also, because we only have two brands we flip back-and-forth between (R) and (D).

Since neither one satisfies effectively, we have a lot of independents. I saw today on CNN where someone started a party called the “Party Party.” But every party needs a platform. If you ask anybody who is an advocate for an existing establishment party what their top issues are, they probably can't list very many. And the issues that they can list are probably only vague generalities.

The key here is that issues are dynamic but parties are not. If the party is a brand, then it needs to adapt to the changing issues. The party usually puts out a policy platform on a periodic basis. This is a high level think tank paper that people are expected to believe in and follow. But since the party doesn't adapt well to the needs of every individual, it only sort of fits the things that you want, but not entirely. The one thing it is sure to do however, is leave you out.

And maybe you're not sure why.

Often the party is not connecting with you specifically. There are several reasons for this. For example, the party platform may not encompass the issues that you think about or are concerned with. Or maybe the party only covers issues that occur on the national level but doesn't capture issues on the state or the local level where party is much less relevant. Sometimes even when the party names some of the issues that you care strongly about, it does not clarify or identify where you stand. So what does this mean?

Your position on an issue is the point of view or side that you support.

And this is where the whole party platform thing begins to break down. The party has a general idea of what their position is on a particular issue and for your allegiance; they demand that you adhere to their same position. However not all issues are black-and-white anymore. Times have changed. Science continues to advance, new facts emerge, technology is changing and the economics underlying most of the issues we face have a complexity that goes beyond what the parties’ issues are.

So you could have people in Washington supporting the party platform but nobody really gives a damn.

Does that mean you should create a new party that has its own fixed ideas about what the top issues are and a general idea of where it stands as far as positional alignment?

Not necessarily.

As I said earlier, parties need to adapt.

Why are they called parties anyway? Isn't a party supposed to be fun, engaging, interesting, and community oriented?

But the parties of today are none of this.

Have you ever noticed that there is no real instruction for people on how laws are made? When you search on the Internet for how laws are made, you will usually find diagrams. These diagrams show where the laws start....

We help voters figure out their stories so that they can change laws

because your present policy decisions shape your political and

economic future. We want to empower you to change laws so that you

can improve your community, influence your country and impact the

world.

This podcast is about how to change a law using iLobby. It is based on

the book How to Change a Law. http://amzn.to/1XyrWu6

-- Transcript (Partial) --

Have you ever noticed that there is no real instruction for people on how laws are made? When you search on the Internet for how laws are made, you will usually find diagrams. These diagrams show where the laws start, usually in one chamber of a legislative body, and then how they go from committee to sponsor to legal counsel for review and a vote etc. However, nowhere in these diagrams does it show where the voters are involved in the process, except sometimes at the very beginning. So basically you are not included in the lawmaking process, if you're an average person.

Why is that?

Well for starters, the passive wording, “How Laws Are Made” makes it sound like an anthropologist is studying the Argentinian beetle in 1805. For example, “Please observe how these laws are made.” It makes it seem like the laws have feet, get up on their own and walk from committee room to committee room and scream out “please vote on me.”

That's what these diagrams show us. But that's not how the process works.

So don’t you think we need a place where citizens can come together to come up with ideas for improvements that they think the government should implement? I think so. The title should not be “How Laws Are Made” but instead “How Do I Make A Law?”

Or change a law, fix a law or repeal a law… You need to be in the picture.

Right now, all the power is left to whoever is familiar with the process and is on the inside. However, an individual voter can affect most of what needs to happen.

Imagine making laws was like the Kentucky Derby. Instead of only showing the horse race from the track on the day of the race, what if we showed how the horse owners, trainers and everybody else spent years developing their horse for the big race? In other words, instead of just showing the bill once it enters a government legislative chamber, what if we showed the entire process from the beginning to the end; how an individual needs to nurture an idea, build a coalition, gain followers, refine and debate the idea, and then finally move it toward a sponsor or representative?

Then you don't come in at the last minute with a half-baked idea. We know that when people are involved in a process early on, they are much more likely to support and nurture the idea to which they have contributed.

No contribution, no interest.

So is it any wonder that when a 2000 page omnibus bill is passed and then implemented, such as the Affordable Care Act, that the citizenry looks at it in complete disbelief and wonders why they were never involved in the process.

This is Day 2 of the video series, Navigate Your Issue. This is a seven day

challenge where you figure out your most important policy issue and

create your story. bit.ly/2a4cwdv

We help voters figure out their stories so that they can change laws

because your present policy decisions shape your political and

economic future. We want to empower you to change laws so that you

can improve your community, influence your country and impact the

world.

This podcast is about how to change a law using iLobby. It is based on

the book How to Change a Law. amzn.to/1XyrWu6

You can learn how to vote, argue, debate, pledge and share

---

Take our free 7-day policy + challenge

This is Day 1 of the video series, Navigate Your Issue. This is a seven day challenge where you figure out your most important policy issue and create your story. bit.ly/2a4cwdv

We help voters figure out their stories so that they can change laws

because your present policy decisions shape your political and

economic future. We want to empower you to change laws so that you

can improve your community, influence your country and impact the

world.

This podcast is about how to change a law using iLobby. It is based on

the book How to Change a Law. amzn.to/1XyrWu6

You can learn how to vote, argue, debate, pledge and share a campaign

at the iLobby free video proving ground. bit.ly/28MQ0qW

This is the introduction to the video series, Navigate Your Issue. This is a seven day challenge where you figure out your most important policy issue and create your story. http://bit.ly/2a4cwdv

We help voters figure out their stories so that they can change laws

because your present policy decisions shape your political and

economic future. We want to empower you to change laws so that you

can improve your community, influence your country and impact the

world.

This podcast is about how to change a law using iLobby. It is based on

the book How to Change a Law. http://amzn.to/1XyrWu6

You can learn how to vote, argue, debate, pledge and share a campaign

at the iLobby free video proving ground. http://bit.ly/28MQ0qW

iLobby Mission

We help voters figure out their stories so that they can change laws

because your present policy decisions shape your political and

economic future. We want to empower you to change laws so that you

can improve your community, influence your country and impact the

world.

This podcast is about how to change a law using iLobby. It is based on

the #1 International Best Seller "How to Change a Law." http://amzn.to/1XyrWu6

You can learn how to vote, argue, debate, pledge and share a campaign

at the iLobby free video proving ground and gain some political relief. http://bit.ly/28MQ0qW

-- Transcript (Partial) --

Lobbying is a dirty word.

Ask anyone. Read the paper. Watch TV. Listen to talk radio. For the past few years every time I heard about political influence and lobbying there was a prevailing view that if we just got rid of the Washington lobbyists everything would be fine.

But is this possible or even desirable? Is it what we really want?

I don't think so.

According to the First Amendment of the US Constitution "Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof; or abridging the freedom of speech, or of the press; or the right of the people peaceably to assemble, and to petition the Government for a redress of grievances." [1]

Apparently the founders were troubled by King George III's inability to listen to polite criticism.

Basically, the Constitution gives us not only the right to talk to our representative, but encourages us to appeal to them, to persuade them, to convince them to our point of view, i.e. to lobby. The First Amendment guarantees it.

We're doing it every day with our spouse anyway, with our roommates, our co-workers, and our boss. So why do we have such a problem with lobbying?

For most of us I think we feel that it is unfairly applied -- meaning that it's only the big guys and the special interests that actually make their views known to Congress. This is generally true.

But that's not their fault. It's ours.

In the last 10 years the lobbying industry has doubled in size and grown into a $3.5B per year business with about 10,000 lobbyists,[2] and that's just at the federal level.

We, the silent majority (I include myself in this group) have been conditioned to believe that if we vote for a representative every few years, that will be good enough. We'll get what we want. We now know that's a myth.

Occasionally the literary, the erudite and brave ones among us write a letter to our congressman, to the editor of our local newspaper or the New York Times. Some of us sign petitions, make campaign contributions or even go out and protest.

But does that get the job done? Sometimes it does.

Personally, I'd like to believe that one brilliant, well-written letter to my Congressman with a nice follow-up phone call to their Legislative Director would be enough to get him or her to change their opinion about a pending law. But out of the almost 700,000 constituents[3] in my congressional district there are likely a handful of people who would take the exact opposite position of me.

Sometimes they have more money, more time on their hands and they're more eloquent than I am. If they work for a large corporation with a PAC or are a union member they seem to have greater political advantage to getting their views in front of my congressman and often make more of an impression then I can alone as an individual.

I should just give up, right? Let someone else decide what's right for me.

Perhaps.

So is that why "lobby" has become a four-letter word?

iLobby Mission

We help voters figure out their stories so that they can change laws because your present policy decisions shape your political and economic future. We want to empower you to change laws so that you can improve your community, influence your country and impact the world.

This podcast is about how to change a law using iLobby. It is based on

the book How to Change a Law. http://amzn.to/1XyrWu6

You can learn how to vote, argue, debate, pledge and share a campaign at the iLobby free video proving ground. http://bit.ly/28MQ0qW

-- Transcript (Partial) --

There are three ways of getting what you want in almost every area of life. You can petition, you can protest or you can persuade. Can it really be that simple? Sure. Take a look.

3 Ways

1. Petition

2. Protest

3. Persuade

Petition

Ask nicely.

To get what you want you have to ask for it. Most of us know what we don't want and have a vague idea of what we do want. But we never really ask. Or we are afraid to. Why? Because when we ask we often fear our request will be denied and we'll be disappointed.

Sometimes you're afraid to ask for something on your own. You need help. So you get people's agreement, their signatures and you hope that if you have more support the likelihood is that you will be granted this thing you are asking for.

Petitioners are on the positive side of the ledger. You ask what for what you want, you hope you can get it, and when you ask you learn that if you have more people to help you, it will increase your chances of success.

There is also a subtle threat that if you are rejected you will tell more people about what you're asking for and whether or not you receive it and often politicians and corporations will cave-in to mass petitions and grant the request, sometimes grudgingly.

Protest

Demand aggressively.

The negative side of asking is demanding. A negative request is a protest. You immediately take a confrontational point of view. You don't ask. You tell. You don't request. You demand.

Protestors create demonstrations and boycotts. They are very public about what they were doing. They gain followers. They have short slogans. They sometimes break things and that is their way of acting out and yelling in order to get what they want. Protesters become quite emotional and active.

This podcast is about how to change a law using iLobby. It is based on

the book How to Change a Law. We want to empower voters to change

laws so that they can improve their community, influence their country

and impact the world. http://amzn.to/1XyrWu6

-- Transcript (Partial) --

We should get money out of politics. Everyone says it is corrosive and corrupts.

But ask any candidate who lost his last campaign if he could have used more money and I think he'll say yes.

The problem is not too much money. The problem is narrowly focused sources of money. Narrow money doesn't work. In plain English, narrowly focused funding sources empower special interests.

In one sense, we don't like special interests because we are not part of the group. But if we were, we would ignore our own hypocrisy and cheer for our 1st Amendment rights.

There's probably an algorithm for the correct balance of financial breadth and depth and its political influence.

You want more of the former (breadth) and less of the latter (depth).

That's why candidates prefer small political donations but they know they are difficult to deal with. So they also like bundlers. Bundlers give the appearance of bringing in smaller donations but the candidate only has to deal with a few people who take credit for the contribution and get the privilege of presenting their position on issues as if they represented everyone who passed money through them.

But getting the right mix of broad support, small donations and sufficient capital to cover a campaign that addresses a range of representative views remains a fine balancing act.

Money doesn't come just from special interests, large corporations, lobbyists and unions. It can also come from other congressmen and committees (RNC, DNC, DSCC) who have been oversubscribed and can pass funding to those candidates who support the party line.

The public doesn't hear much about this.

So, the key is not to get rid of money in politics. I think that's almost impossible.

Politicians need to reach their constituents at election time and the cost of doing this gets higher every year. If the media wanted to give every candidate free airtime, free radio time and free space that would reduce the cost for the campaign. But then mass media companies wouldn't be running a business, would they?

It's awkward. You give money to your representative to get the word out. He pays a network for airtime. You watch TV and believe the 15-second spot and you vote for him. The only one out-of-pocket is you.

So my opinion is not to support public financing of campaigns (broad) nor is it doing away with special interests (narrow).

It's not all or nothing. It rarely is.

What the voter wants is for his representative to listen to him anyway, but this is not guaranteed by a small donation or by a vote.

I think small donors need to become politically engaged. They must step up to the plate. They need to find a way to collectively express their opinions so that they gain the advantage of representing views that really matter to them.

If individual voters could come together as a group in an ad-hoc way over issues that matter to them, they could easily gain the funding power of a large corporation, union or special interest and hire lobbyists to represent them. It's a novel idea but completely doable.

You don't have to contribute to a candidate's campaign. After all, it is rare that your congressman would hold similar views to every one of yours. Instead, you contribute to an idea, a cause that becomes a piece of legislation.

----

This podcast is about how to change a law using iLobby. It is based on

the book How to Change a Law. We want to empower voters to change

laws so that they can improve their community, influence their country

and impact the world.

-- Transcript (Partial) --

Introduction

Structurally speaking, debate has five main parts:

1. Summary

2. Position

3. Arguments

4. Rebuttals

5. Conclusion

Most debates also have rules about its resources. These serve to act as constraints. They are:

• Time

• Votes

The purpose of debate is to come to a decision about a complex issue or topic. This is important because once you reach a decision you're free to take action.

So debate is really a decision process tool.

Let me break down the five main parts.

Summary

The summary is like an opening statement or thesis. It is best if it is open-ended and posed as a question.

In the summary you pose a question often starting with the word "Should... " i.e. should the US be energy independent? Should Congress audit the Federal Reserve? Should we ban assault weapons? Should bad teachers be fired from our public schools?

You are not trying to build an argument to support your case just yet. At this stage, you're simply asking a question.

The summary usually includes some background or facts to set out the framework for the audience.

Position

The position is simple. You either support the thesis (summary) or you oppose it. You are either for it or against it.

Once you know your position, then it is easy to argue. Generally you will argue on one side of the issue or the other.

Arguments

Because people often have not made up their minds, you may find when you speak with someone they argue out of both sides of their mouth. This happens because they either don't know their position or don't have the courage of their convictions.

Depending on what side of the fence you're on, you select one side of an issue and you advance arguments that support your position.

Arguments are intended to convince your audience that you are right, that they should adopt your position and in that way you gain support for your main thesis.

Arguing is not yelling. It's persuading. It's not as complicated as it sounds because we do it every day. We just don't realize it and we don't do it well.