Yesterday, House Majority Leader, Eric Cantor, introduced "Citizen Cosponsor," which he personally describes in a video on www.majorityleader.gov as "an innovative way for you to stay in touch with your Member of Congress, to be engaged in the legislative process, and to make sure you're speaking out on the issues that are of particular concern for you." (emphasis added.) The video encourages you to "sign in with Facebook" and Leader Cantor continues, "Co-sponsor the bills that you support, we'll keep you informed, and you'll be engaged throughout the legislative process." The application uses Facebook Open Graph to help people follow the progress of bills that they "co-sponsor."
As a former Congressional staffer, I understand the immense challenges at all levels within a system that -- let's face it -- is in the status quo business. I am extremely hesitant to criticize any effort with a stated mission of increasing individual involvement and understanding of the legislative process. In this case, however, there are important questions to be asked, and I list them here with the hope that they will be addressed and the laudable mission of the Citizen Cosponsor project reached.
In late 2007 when I, as a staffer, shopped an idea around within Congress to create a public platform for constituent engagement, I discovered that it was nearly impossible to build something like that within the institution of Congress outside of the partisan caucus system. You could either build a Democratic-sponsored tool or a Republican-sponsored tool, but there was no structure for building a nonpartisan CONGRESSIONAL tool (and don't even get me started on how impossible integration between House and Senate was/is.)* My experience does not mean that nonpartisan strides are impossible -- just challenging, and that any effort should be viewed with a critical eye.
Critical Questions about Citizen Cosponsor
With the new effort, there are several concerning issues that need to be addressed by its sponsors:
Time to revisit the old rules?
Few outside the wonktastic world of Congress understand the role of the Franking Commission, which exists to limit the inherent incumbent advantage in the use of official resources for contacting members of the public. (I beat this drum a lot, most recently in a blog post on why Congress Only Wants to Hear from Constituents.) Members of Congress are given a powerful tool in the Congressional Franking Privilege, which allows them to send messages and respond to constituent inquiries through the U.S. Postal Service or over official email addresses. Franking restricts mass mailings outside their district -- limiting the electoral incumbent advantage of ambitious Members who might want to lay the groundwork for future senatorial or presidential run by using official resources to reach people outside his or her district.
Franking regulations were appropriately relaxed to great fanfare to allow Congress to use social media, thanks to the work of the Open House Project and the "Let our Congress Tweet" campaign by the Sunlight Foundation. (For a full history of the open government data movement, see Open Government Data, by POPVOX co-founder Joshua Tauberer.) However, as Members of Congress are increasingly empowered through social media to build large lists and reach people beyond their districts through "official" accounts, the old concerns about incumbent overreach may merit review.
Hey -- we've been there.
These are not uncomplicated issues, and it is not necessarily a reflection of bad intentions that these were not addressed on Day 1. In many cases, we have weighed similar questions in the building and rollout of POPVOX over the past eighteen months. We strive everyday to provide a neutral platform for all voices to be heard on every bill in Congress -- for those messages to be delivered as efficiently as possible to the appropriate Member of Congress, and for the input to be transparent, verified, and quantified in a way that empowers the Voice of the People.
Release early, Fail fast.
As with any startup, the first iteration is never perfect. Reid Hoffman, the founder of LinkedIn, famously said, "if you are not embarrassed by your first release, you've launched too late." In that sense, maybe the Majority Leader is learning from the startup world. In an email response to my questions, Matt Lira, Director of New Media for Majority Leader Cantor, seemed to indicate that there were iterations to come: "As was the case when I publicly defended We the People, this is an evolutionary step - there will be continual progress, as with all these things, towards the desired end of a modernized Congress."
Lira and others like Alexander Howard have rightly noted that, "We are in Open Government's beta period."
Consider this customer feedback for the beta and three cheers for the goal of "a modernized Congress."
*I eventually gave up on the internal attempt and left Congress in February 2010, to join Rachna Choudhry and Joshua Tauberer in building POPVOX outside of the partisan limitations of Congress.
so many from both parties that are Judases to this country.
E-Verify helps unemployed and underpaid citizens. Campaign finance reform helps the whole country.
I believe almost all of our congress members and the key people in the administration are all millionaires or very close to it. They will vote for what will increase their assets. This is one of the reasons the immigration problem has not be resolved for the benefit of the unemployed and underemployed citizens.
Each member of congress has a ‘conflict of interest’ which could dramatically change things in congress. Issues this controversial could not easily, if at all, win a legal challenge. The issue such as immigration must be decided by a national ballot.
[ however there must be an option to vote against what ever plan they want to pass off on a catch 22 vote]
Health: immunization requirements, pregnancies, physical and mental handicaps, and new strands of viruses.
[ illegal entry can bring about devastating epidemics designed as bio weapons; or an accidental spread of a new virus as well as the known increase of Tuberculosis cases. ]
These safeguards normally utilized through the normal immigration process are bypassed.
Criminals and increases in crime: Who can tell anything about the type or character or that persons intent by entering the US illegally? How do we know until it is too late?
Economics: Number of and the needed skills immigrants must be limited to what can be easily absorbed in our community economics. Overlooking this factor in favor of National Level Economics or GNP is what has caused such devastating effects of the high unemployment and the destruction of the middle income citizens their American Dreams of Prosperity.
We cannot have an increase in legal or illegal immigration. We must place a moratorium on all immigration until our economy can adjust to those we do have.
We want E-Verify and he doesn't get it!!!! And to think we pay their salaries and benefits and pensions and perks and I could go on forever. This has got to stop!!!!! Wake up America.
Admitting foreign born people to become united states citizens has been a long tradition in our country. All four of my grandparents emigrated from Europe, became citizens thru the proper channels, learned English, took up trades, bought houses, businesses and blended into society. Today things have changed. From what I could read the immigration laws have been swept under the rug and political correctness has raised its ugly head. I urge those with their hand on the law to do the right thing. I realize that it is not trendy to stick to American traditions like holidays or religious observances or marriage between a man an a woman to create a new and bright generation too; upholding the laws to serve and protect the American citizen and taxpayers.
It does not existed anymore.
What if politicians paid voters to express their political views on social media? That would be a game changer.
No E-Verify bill to be found? I would like to "citizen cosponsor" this legislation, but apparently you FORGOT to include it. you did forget, correct? Yo wouldn't have overlooked it intentionally, would you?
I figured that the Dems were doing all the minority vote buying, but I guess the problem goes deeper....
Where is the E-Verify legislation? I would like to "citizen co-sponsor" this initiative. I can't seem to find it. You didn't overlook it, did you?
Nah, only Democrats would try to pacify a certain group to buy votes, right? Right? I'm waiting......