[PLEASE NOTE: We wrote this letter some time
ago, but we wanted to wait until the final count for every campaign
was tallied and certified before sending it out. As you well know,
the process took longer than everyone expected, and then with
the holidays right around the corner, we elected to send this
message out in the New Year. Our intent is to lay to rest questions
from the past and offer a place to begin discussion for the future.]
Dear friends,
We are aware that there has been much speculation
and question regarding the role of Local Solutions in the November
elections. We are deeply disappointed with the results and frustrated
that we at Local Solutions were unable to do more to help. We
believe the Eureka elections could have been won by focusing on
grassroots mobilization with a strong emphasis on coordination
and cooperation between campaigns in order to make the task manageable
and more enjoyable.
We have spent some time considering how to talk
about the issues that concern us, and how to engage the broader
progressive community in this conversation. We would like to hear
your ideas for building local political campaigns with a spirit
of cooperation and respect and your suggestions for what role
Local Solutions should play in this work.
Local Solutions was formed to provide tools and
expertise for grassroots progressive political organizing. We
believe that ethics, integrity, and the process of engaging and
empowering voters are just as important as a victory on Election
Day.
Elections, particularly in Humboldt County, are
won by mobilizing hundreds of volunteers talking to thousands
of their neighbors. By focusing on voter outreach and involvement
(rather than media or fundraising), elections can be a way to
develop new leaders and teach citizens how to mobilize each other.
At Local Solutions we care most about building a grassroots movement
for progressive power. Each political race is important, but we
challenge ourselves to keep our eye on the big picture as well.
During the Measure T and Gallegos campaigns, there
was some coordination between campaigns, but most of the voter
outreach coordination happened late in the process. As we prepared
for the November elections, we hoped we could foster better coordination
between campaigns from the beginning, ensuring that the campaigns
shared resources with each other rather than competing.
We determined our skills and resources would be best used for
voter contact and outreach, focusing on ensuring that every supportive
voter went to the polls on Election Day. Local Solutions directors,
as individuals or as a group, have managed voter contact, volunteer
recruitment, and Get Out the Vote (GOTV) operations in many successful
campaigns, including the attempted recall of the District Attorney,
the Humboldt campaign against the Schwarzenegger Special Election
propositions in November 2005, Chris Kerrigan’s re-election
campaign, Kaitlin Sopoci-Belknap’s campaign for Water District,
Measure T and key components of the Gallegos re-election campaign.
Local Solutions presented a Coordinated Campaign
proposal to the endorsed candidates and their campaign teams.
It described how the campaigns could work together to maximize
voter outreach, build energy and enthusiasm, and minimize the
strain on financial and volunteer resources. We offered trainings
on campaign management, candidate training, phonebank management,
volunteer recruitment and coordination, and campaign finance reporting.
We offered this assistance at a cost of $750 to each campaign.
This amount represented a portion of the cost we would incur to
create an organized system for voter outreach and GOTV that would
be coordinated between all campaigns.
The candidates and the campaigns had a lukewarm
response to our proposal, and in the end they decided not to work
with us to implement a coordinated campaign. We failed to communicate
our vision of the campaign process, and we underestimated the
trepidation on the part of candidates and campaigns to work together.
It was harder than we imagined to abandon the conventional wisdom,
that elections are based on a model of scarcity: Someone will
win, everyone else will lose. When winning becomes the only goal
of a campaign, each decision becomes based on fear—rather
than what is most likely to build skills, knowledge, power, and
create a supportive community culture for everyone involved. It
is our understanding that eventually the campaigns did work together
on their phonebank and GOTV efforts, however the system was difficult
to implement effectively by the time that decision was made.
The campaigns were also eager to work with Richard
Salzman, a campaign advisor who has a very different attitude
about elections than we do. Based upon multiple experiences, we
know that Richard wants to win at all costs and spend a lot of
money doing it. We appreciate Richard’s hard work, but we
decided earlier in the summer that we could no longer work with
him. This was no doubt awkward for everyone, but after much internal
discussion, it was determined that we needed to be clear that
we do politics differently.
While we did not participate in the November election
nearly as much as we originally planned, we also did not entirely
sit it out. We produced and distributed a direct mailer to progressive
Eureka voters, and directed volunteers and donations to the campaigns
when individuals came to us asking how they could get involved.
We invested $4500 in preparation for the 2006 election, but the
resources were largely unused by the campaigns.
This election was an important one for Eureka, and
the whole county. Compared to the last several election cycles,
the results are certainly a setback for progressives. But it is
important that we learn from our mistakes as well as our successes.
Let’s move forward and continue working to build a more
democratic, sustainable, equitable, and just community. We stand
as committed as ever to serve that vision and the people who work
so hard to bring it forward. We welcome your questions and suggestions
for the future.
In solidarity,
Dennis Huber, Alice Woodworth, Patrick Riggs, Kaitlin Sopoci-Belknap
and Nicole Spencer
P.S. In July 2006, Local Solutions made a formal
policy not to facilitate indirect campaign contributions to campaigns.
We adopted this policy in the interest of ensuring full disclosure
of campaign contributions to the public. We understand this is
different from the function of most Political Action Committees,
but we believe it is in keeping with the principles of our organization.
All of the funds received by Local Solutions go directly back
into grassroots organizing efforts.
