Thursday, November 20, 2008

When nonprofits come knocking, should you give?

Note: This post inspired by Lindsay Hoffman's unfortunate recent experience trying to work for social justice.


Note #2: This post's focus is how to give your political-orientated financial gifts. Of course there are other types of progressive causes. Any tips on evaulating the worthwhileness of union efforts, civil liberties, anti-media consolidation, good government, drug legalization, anti-death penalty, affordable housing, religious freedom, the separation of church and state, etc, are welcome.


And support non-political nonprofits doing key work in your community and around the world! My favorites are here and here.

*****



Progressives rejoice! Obama has been elected! We can plan our January 20th parties heralding a new age and take a well-deserved breather at the remarkable turnaround.


Except we can't.


Much work needs to be done. And much of it by the worthy organizations that helped get Obama and Congressional progressives elected. They have used up their resources for November 4th and now must start putting their agenda into actual action.


So, if you think you don't have to send in that $50 check to the local family planning clinic, think again.


The need is still there. It's overwhelming. Who deserves the money that you don't have? Don't fret, because I'm here to give you some unsolicited advice.


Give to the organizations that do real work. Sometimes they're the ones you've heard of, often times they're not.


If it is a national organization, find out what kind of grassroots organizing they do?.Do they spend your money on fancy fundraising consultants to ask you for more money? Do they spend it on a couple of high priced lobbysists? Or are they actually engage in grassroots organizing of the citizenry? If they can't tell you what they do in our state and community, bid them adiuex.


If they're a national organization that does work in your state, see if you can send money directly to the local chapter/affiliate instead. The local folks are usually more cash starved. Some national organizations will tell you they pass along your donation to the state level. If they're not lying, they do so after taking a heavy cut that goes to fancy DC consultants, lobbyists, or expensive, multi-color print-filled binders for Board members and fancy pens.

*****



Environmental groups. There are more environmental groups than there are people. How to figure that one out? I don't know what to tell you, except that you'll do better by going local. These big national and international enviros see your $50 check the same way: as an invitation to get a big donation from. They know that so many people out of 100 $50 donors will give them $5000 if asked enough. So, they'll spend a substantial portion of the $50 to resolicit you over and over and over again, even if you tell them not to. The smaller, local enviro will be ever so happy to put your $50 to good use.


GLBT organizations. Same thing. You might think that there is only one organization fighting for equal rights. But HRC is not alone. They could use some greater competition. Go check out the competition.


Reproductive health. (Moment of disclosure: I once worked for a NARAL affiliate but no longer have any connection to NARAL.) You can go two routes: political or direct services. If you want to protect the political right and support legislation that protects the right to choose and access to birth control and accurate sexuality education, give to your local NARAL affiliate (or the national organization). If you want to give to reproductive health services, Planned Parenthood is worthy, but there are many other sources that will put your dollars to even better use. Find out who the local independent family planning clinics are in your area. Give to one of many abortion assistance funds. I guarentee those funds will not go into fundraising or high-priced consultants.


UPDATE: These are the areas I know about. Does you have a perspective on nonprofits working on other progressive causes?

*****



What about that young person who comes knocking at your door? Should the canvasser from a worthy organization get your check? Should you take their literature and send it in? It depends.


First, ask them if they work for the organization in question or a contractor like the "Fund for Public Interest Research" or "Hudson Bay Companies." If they pause or admit to working for a third party entity, offer them a drink of water and a bathroom visit, but no money. Suggest to them that there are better canvassing operations that actually do grassroots organizing and that they often pay better.


Second, do they know what they're talking about? Are they passionate about it? Or is it clearly a script? Sometimes it's hard to tell, but sometime's it's easy. Especially be wary if they've created a false sense of urgency. I remember being told that "Congress is voting on this next week." It was August and I knew that Congress was on vacation and not voting on anything. You shouldn't expect a young canvasser to be a policy expert, but they should have some additional information that's not on their prepared script.


If they pass the test, then do give them money. Yes, they make a bonus off your contribution. But it's a well-earned bonus. (Figure you're only 6 of 60 people they talk to that night who actually give them a contribution.) If you sent the money in, the organization would simply spend a comparable amount for time resoliciting you by mail (even if you request not to be contacted). So instead of a cut of your contribution going towards paper and postage, have it going to a hard-working activist who is talking to your annoying neighbors about important issues over several hours each night.


In this economy, you're helping someone keep a job too! Give them at least $20. A good canvasser will try to "bump" you up from that level. Don't be insulted. Just be clear on the amount you are willing to give. (I usually say "$10" and then "allow" them to talk me up to $20 or $25.)


So, give the canvasser a check and tell them not to contact you (unless you want newsletters, etc.) There's only a 50% chance the organization will respect it, but it's better for everyone if you take your name off the list unless you're going to give regularly scheduled contributions. Otherwise, they're losing their money on you.


If your request to not be contacted isn't respected, don't blame the canvasser. They don't want the organization to resolicit you either. They know that they themself or a colleague will be knocking on your door one year later and want you to give the check to them, not mail it in. Sometimes organization development directors ignore those requests. More often, organizations' data entry isn't perfect. We're talking about volunteers here.

*****



The real world of nonprofit fundraising might make you cynical and say "screw it." That's the easy way out. Nonprofits have to be aggressive if they're going to fund their important work.


Donors are increasingly fickle. It takes an average of seven contacts before someone gives. You can be responsible by deciding the small number of groups you're going to give to, and give on a regular basis so they don't waste time chasing you. Tell other groups not to contact you if you're not going to give. Know that $100 to one group probably does more than two $50 contributions to two groups.

Wednesday, November 19, 2008

101 Words: June 1999

Inspired by Verbal Remedy and Somyr Perry, I've penned my own 101 word short story. As I don't write fiction, my story, like Verbal Remedy's, is true.

*****


A summer day. I lived off campus. Working just 15 hours a week, I was underemployed, but had free time.


On my bike, go buy a bagel sandwich on Division Street, and continue meandering around.


On the sidewalk, is that who I think it is?


We chat. She’s canvassing. Suggests that I apply for a canvassing job. I’m noncommittal.


I eat the sandwich by the river. I reflect on where my life is going. Perhaps I should apply and see if I can be a professional activist?


She trains me. I quit in two weeks.


Two years later we were married.


Friday, November 14, 2008

How to start class warfare

We live in a capitalist country, where all aspire to be rich. In political campaigns, the charge of inciting class warfare is effective because most Americans, regardless of their class, don't want to go down that road.


But if real class warfare is to occur, this is how:


Regents discuss beer sales at new stadium


Minnesota Public Radio - November 14, 2008


"University of Minnesota president Robert Bruininks is asking the Board of Regents to allow the school to sell beer and wine at its new TCF Bank football stadium.


"But drinks would only be available to fans in premium seats that range in price from $1,800 to $3,000 a season, or in private suites that cost up to $45,000 a year.


"Regent John Frobenius says he's concerned how the public will view the arrangement.


"'We're going to a new stadium, and the message is high-spending supporters have access to alcohol, medium-spending supporters do not,' said Frobenius. 'And that is a little gnawing at me that makes me a just a little uncomfortable with that.'" [emphasis mine]


Yes. Ya think people might have a problem with that?!? The people in the cheap seats don't even have the luxury of over-paying for watered down beer? But those in the corporate-sponsored boxes, they'll be able to get liquored up. And I'm sure it won't be with the cheap stuff.


The Board of Regents delayed taking action on the proposal for now; but they have to know this isn't a sustainable solution. People will be up in arms. The proposed alcohol divide is all in the name to keep the evil corrupting influence of alcohol out of the hands of the underage students who are forced to sit in the poor seats.


Monday, November 3, 2008

How soon on election night will we know the winner

How soon on election night will we know the winner? When can we celebrate? Will it be mere minutes after the polls close in the East? Or are we going to have to brace for a late night like in recent elections?

On election night all those experts will have their fancy maps and go through scenario after scenario, plugging in the pieces of the puzzle as they trickle in. "ABC News calls New Hampshire for John McCain. This is what else McCain will have to win to get to 270..." blah blah blah.

I've made an election night cheat sheet to use yourself. When can the election be called?

The point is here not to predict when and how the media will call the election. Based on past experiences, they don't call states until the polls close there. So while we all know where California is going, the media won't put it blue on their nifty maps until after 11:00 PM EST. This is to help see when you yourself can feel confident to call the election ahead of the media.

First, we have a darn good idea how 34 states and the District of Columbia are going to go. Using Pollster's current weighed poll margins, I've preemptively put the states with 10 point or more margins with their candidate. (Notice the list doesn't include Virginia or even Arizona.) This is a hyper-conservative way to call the states.

OBAMA: 238 votes (ME, NH, VT, MA, RI, CT, NY, NJ, DE, MD, DC, MI, WI, MN, IL, IA, CA, OR, WA, HI)
MCCAIN: 123 votes (AK, ID, WY, UT, NE, KS, OK, TX, AR, LA, AL, TN, KY, SC, WV)

* - swing states

At 7:00 EST polls close in GA*, IN*, KY, SC, VT & VA*
  • If the media calls Virginia for Obama, he's at 251 with about 12 swing states left to call.
  • If the media calls Virginia and Georgia for Obama, he's at 266 with about 12 swing states left to call.
  • If the media calls Virginia and Indiana for Obama, he's at 262 with about 12 swing states left to call.
  • If the media calls Virginia, Georgia and Indiana for Obama, he wins with 277 already
  • If McCain surprises by somehow winning Virginia, get ready for a longer night. That only puts McCain up to 136, but it might be indicative of how Pennsylvania and Ohio will go.
At 7:30 EST polls close in OH*, NC* & WV (We'll see how well the vote counting and exit polls go in Ohio!)
  • If VA has been called for Obama, but not IN or GA, winning Ohio alone gets him to 271. He wins.
  • If VA has been called for Obama, but not IN or GA, winning North Carolina but not Ohio gets him to 266 with a number of states still in question.
  • If VA and IN have been called for Obama, winning either Ohio or North Carolina clinches it.
  • If VA and GA have been called for Obama, winning either Ohio or North Carolina clinches it.
  • If VA, GA and IN have been called for McCain, but Obama wins Ohio, he's at 258 with Florida, Missouri and a number of western states still in question.
  • If McCain has swept VA, GA and IN, and then Ohio and North Carolina, he's only at 174 to Obama's 238. But it would appear that the remaining states in question could just about all break his way.
At 8:00 EST polls close in AL, CT, DE, FL*, IL, ME, MD, MA, MS*, MO*, NH, NJ, OK, PA*, TN, DC (We'll see how the vote counting and exit polls go in Florida!)
  • If Obama is called to win Pennsylvania, he wins if any other previous or contemporary swing state is called for him (OH, NC, FL, MS, or MO). Otherwise, Obama is at 259 with PA alone. If McCain gets everything else called his way by this point, he'd have 241. (Obama would need to win CO and one more state, like NV or NM.)
  • If Obama is called to win Florida, he wins if any other previous or contemporary state in question is called for him (OH, NC, MS, MO, or PA). Otherwise, Obama is at 265 with FL alone. (If McCain gets everything else called his way by this point, Obama just needs NM or CO or NV to win.)
  • If Obama improbably wins Missouri, but not Pennsylvania or Florida, he's at 249 and we're going to have to wait for the western states.
  • If McCain sweeps Pennsylvania, Mississippi, Missouri and Florida, after sweeping all the earlier called swing states (OH and NC), he's at 262. (McCain would then only need to secure AZ or CO, or the combinations of SD-ND-MT, or NV with any other state or NM with any other state.)
At 8:30 EST polls close in AR

At 9:00 EST polls close in AZ*, CO*, KS, LA, MI, MN, NE, NM*, NY, RI, SD*, TX, WI, WY (If we don't know already, we'll likely know the winner once these states are called.)
  • If McCain has swept every swing state thus far, Arizona or Colorado or the New Mexico-South Dakota combination wins it for him.
  • If McCain has swept every swing state thus far, except PA, Colorado or Arizona plus either New Mexico or South Dakota wins it for Obama. CO is a must win for Obama if the election is still up in the air. In this situation, if McCain wins AZ, CO, NM, and SD, McCain would be one state shy of winning. If Obama takes CO and McCain takes AZ, NM and SD, Obama has 268 and would need just one more of the remaining 3 swing states.
  • If McCain has swept every swing state thus far, except OH, it's virtually the same situation as the previous scenario. (OH has 20 electoral votes and PA has 21.)
  • If McCain has swept every swing state thus far, except VA, how these four states break would make a big difference. Either candidate getting both Arizona and Colorado puts them within one state of winning (SD, NM, NV, MT, or ND). In the most likely scenario that Obama takes Colorado and McCain takes Arizona, whoever takes three of the remaining five states provided that one of the three is NV or NM, will win. (In the unlikely scenario of McCain taking NV and NM, and Obama taking ND, SD, MT, we'll have a 269-269 tie.)
  • If McCain has swept every swing state except VA and MO (or IN), Colorado or Arizona wins it for Obama If McCain gets Colorado and Arizona, Obama getting New Mexico puts him at 267, needing South Dakota to win, or to wait to snag ND, NV, or MT to win. If McCain gets Colorado, and Arizona, and New Mexico, and Obama gets South Dakota, Obama would be at 265 (to 262), needing to get NV or MT-ND to win. If McCain gets all four states (CO, AZ, NM, SD), he'd have 265 to Obama's 262. (McCain would win unless Obama got NV as well as either ND or MT.)
  • If McCain has swept every swing state thus far, except FL, Obama would be at 265 and only need Arizona, Colorado or New Mexico. Obama could lose all three and still win with South Dakota plus one more state (MT, ND, or NV). If McCain wins all four states, he'd still be trailing with 262 to Obama's 265 electoral votes. (Obama could win with NV or MT-ND.)
At 10:00 EST polls close in IA, MT*, NV* & UT
  • Montana and Nevada matter if McCain has swept just about every swing state and we're close to an electoral vote tie. In most scenarios (see in the previous state entries), Obama wins with Nevada or needs Nevada to win with Montana or the yet-to-close-their-polls North Dakota.
At 11:00 EST polls close in CA, HI, ID, ND*, OR, WA
  • Could North Dakota decide it? Maybe. If McCain swept every swing state except FL and MT (or SD), we'd be looking at Obama at 268 and McCain at 267. North Dakota's three electoral votes determine the winner.
  • If McCain sweeps every swing state except CO and PA (or OH), we have the same electoral vote set-up. This is not an entirely implausible situation.
At 1:00 EST polls close in AK

*****

Of course this exercise assumes some accuracy in the current understanding of the electoral map. If either candidate wins a state seen as solid for the other, all bets are off. Most likely that means a landslide either way. If McCain wins Michigan, he's probably going to win the election handedly. If Obama wins Tennessee, he's probably going to win the election handedly.

The assumption also is that states will be called by the media in the order they finish voting. We can guess that contentious swing states might take some time before they're called. Some states like Ohio and Florida might have some trouble counting their votes in a timely manner.

My suggestion for election night would be to go over to 270towin.com with their interactive map. Color all states that are solid McCain or Obama ahead of time, and then complete the swing states as they are called throughout election night. You don't need to listen to the "experts" with their fancy graphics--you can do it yourself.

Won't get fooled?

In an effort to keep my electoral optimism in check, I present "Won't Get Fooled Again" from The Who.



I'm not really as cynical as this song. But it does underscore how difficult true change is.

Lyrics to Won't Get Fooled Again

We'll be fighting in the streets
With our children at our feet
And the morals that they worship will be gone
And the men who spurred us on
Sit in judgement of all wrong
They decide and the shotgun sings the song

I'll tip my hat to the new constitution
Take a bow for the new revolution
Smile and grin at the change all around me
Pick up my guitar and play
Just like yesterday
Then I'll get on my knees and pray
We don't get fooled again

The change, it had to come
We knew it all along
We were liberated from the foe, that's all
And the world looks just the same
And history ain't changed
'Cause the banners, they all flown in the next war

I'll tip my hat to the new constitution
Take a bow for the new revolution
Smile and grin at the change all around me
Pick up my guitar and play
Just like yesterday
Then I'll get on my knees and pray
We don't get fooled again
No, no!

I'll move myself and my family aside
If we happen to be left half alive
I'll get all my papers and smile at the sky
For I know that the hypnotized never lie

Do ya?

YAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAH!

There's nothing in the street
Looks any different to me
And the slogans are replaced, by-the-bye
And the parting on the left
Is now the parting on the right
And the beards have all grown longer overnight

I'll tip my hat to the new constitution
Take a bow for the new revolution
Smile and grin at the change all around me
Pick up my guitar and play
Just like yesterday
Then I'll get on my knees and pray
We don't get fooled again
Don't get fooled again
No, no!

YAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAH!

Meet the new boss
Same as the old boss

Sunday, November 2, 2008

I just switched by vote




Maybe this ad will have the intended switch of moving voters away from Norm Coleman. I think my vote just switched away from Al Franken.

*****

What's this about? Last week in a nasty shareholder dispute in a Texas marine company, one of the many lawsuit charges against the majority shareholder and Norm Coleman friend involved a $75,000 payment to the insurance company that employs the Senator's wife as an independent contractor. Neither the Senator nor his wife have been sued or even directly accused of wrongdoing. The Colemans deny the allegations. The Coleman campaign immediately accused the Franken campaign of orchestrating the whole thing, which defies credibility. Franken rightly swung back and accused Coleman of lying to the people of Minnesota by saying Franken was responsible.

The Democrats are not to be out down, so the DSCC ran the above ad. So we don't need to worry about presumed innocence or the lack of evidence so far. While there very well may be something to these accusations (I put nothing past Norm Coleman), with the current facts this ad amounts to unsubstantiated character assassination. The Senator running away from reporters without answering questions presumes guilt. (Even though Coleman did respond to reporters quickly to vehemently deny any wrongdoing.)

Is Franken responsible? Not directly. His campaign legally has nothing to do with the DSCC. But both Franken and Coleman have been responsible for the dirty, vindictive tone of this race. They should both be blamed when their allies follow their lead.

I've been considering to vote for Independence Party candidate Dean Barkley for months. I like where he stands on most issues. The only problem is that he is unlikely to win (though he's polling in the upper teens) and that the stakes are high. It makes me sick to think of Coleman representing Minnesota for another six years. The improbable, but still possible, Democratic capture of 60 Senate seats cannot occur without a Democratic win in Minnesota. One Senate seat could be decisive on a number of vital issues, including on Supreme Court nominations.

I'm pissed off. First, I don't like seeing Democrats get into the dirty tricks campaigning. Second, no one should ever make me feel sorry for Norm Coleman. I didn't think I had the capacity to have any sympathy for that man.

It will be a tragedy if Coleman squeaks out a victory on Tuesday. But I can't in good conscience vote for the Democrat Al Franken.