John Lumea

The Shadow Super PAC of "Centrism"

Or, How Americans Elect Is Trying to Have Its Cake and Eat It Too

 

The other day, in the course of discussing the dogged refusal of Americans Elect to disclose the names of its financial backers, I wondered:

How is it that Lawrence Lessig, one of the
most informed and eloquent critics of the undue influence of money over politics — and one of the most ardent and public advocates for financial transparency from elected officials, corporations and political institutions — winds up on the Board of Advisors (see "Leadership," here) of a political group with such a shadowy financial pedigree?

Shortly afterwards, the respected election law scholar and blogger Rick Hasen tweeted Lessig a version of my question — "Do you still support Americans Elect, given their transparency problem?" — and this triggered a lively exchange, which is recorded on their two blogs: Lessig's initial response, Hasen's counter and Lessig's final volley.

In the second of his two posts, Lessig offers this crisp little summary of his argument (emphases Lessig's):

AE is a platform. It will give one candidate a chance to get on 50 ballots, and challenge the Democratic and Republican nominee.

What will that candidate owe AE? Gratitude, no doubt. But is there anything in that gratitude that should lead anyone to worry that the candidate will bend one way or the other because of these secret funders?

How could it? If the candidates don’t even know who the funders are (and I can attest with certainty that [declared Americans Elect presidential candidate Buddy] Roemer (who also is critical of the nontransparency) doesn’t), how is the position of the funder supposed to affect the candidate and his or her positions?

Lessig's position seems to be that, although it might be preferable for Americans Elect to reveal who its funders are...

1
The anonymity of Americans Elect's funders is not a serious concern, because all they are funding is (a) the creation of an online voting platform and (b) 50-state ballot access — not specific candidates.

2
The anonymity of these funders is not an issue, anyway, because, unless both a specific candidate and a specific funder(s) are known to one another, there is no opportunity for political corruption to occur.

In taking this line, Lessig echoes and amplifies the message that one hears from Americans Elect officials like CEO Kahlil Byrd and COO Elliot Ackerman, as well as from Lessig's fellow advisory board member at Americans Elect, Mark McKinnon: that Americans Elect simply (a) is an alternative mechanism for getting on the ballot, and (b) is not backing any particular single candidate — and thus is in compliance with its IRS corporate status as a 501c4 "social welfare organization."

This message is at odds, however, with the one being promoted by another organization that has Lessig as an advisory board member: the Sunlight Foundation, which, in its reports and news updates (here, here and here, under "Campaign Finance"), has been tracking a petition by two watchdog groups, Democracy 21 and the Campaign Legal Center, calling on the IRS to tighten its regulation of 501c4's and, specifically, to investigate
four of these groups, including Americans Elect, for non-compliance.

In one such report, "Dark money in the twilight of 2011," Sunlight flags a recent item by Rick Hasen, in which he writes (emphasis mine):

My big concern [until quite recently] was
that we would see a lot of transfers of money from 501c4s to affiliated super PACs to shield the identity of donors to super PACs....[T]he reason these transfers are not taking place is that it appears the 501c4s are engaging in much more direct election-related activity than they have in the past. That is, we are seeing some 501c4s becoming pure election vehicles. The relation of 501c4s to super PACs is now like the past relation between 527s and PACs — these are now the vehicles of questionable legality to influence elections....[F]ixing the coordination rules for super PACs...seems to
be fighting yesterday’s war already. The key
is to stop 501c4s from becoming shadow
super PACs. Yes, campaign finance reform community, it has become this bad: I want more super PACs, because the 501c4 alternative is worse!

In fact, what the Americans Elect funders are funding
is considerably more than just an alternative voting platform and a ballot access initiative — two seemingly altruistic enterprises.

The political contours of this "more" reveal the inadequacy of Lessig's response to Hasen's query.

Indeed, that Lessig identifies himself only as a "supporter" of Americans Elect — never mentioning
that he actually is on the Board of Advisors — suggests that Lessig may be well aware of a certain cognitive dissonance in his having a simultaneous official role in two organizations, one of which, Americans Elect, is keeping in the shadows the very thing on which the other, the Sunlight Foundation, is trying to shine a light.

As we'll see, what Hasen called Americans Elect's "transparency problem" cuts in a few different
directions.

 

::   ::   ::

 

FOLLOWING Lessig's initial response to Hasen, Henry Farrell, who teaches political science and international affairs at George Washington University, posted
an insightful and nuanced challenge to Lessig
at Crooked Timber, the group blog where Farrell is
a contributor. This excerpt offers an opening to understanding the anti-democratic impulse at the
heart of Americans Elect (bold emphasis mine):

The problem that Lessig seems partly insensible to is that Americans Elect plausibly reflects a kind of purportedly non-partisan corruption that is more subtle but also more damaging than direct graft, or even the implicit quid-pro-quo relationships that he rightly excoriates. [University of British Columbia professor] Mark Warren gets at this nicely.

If corruption professionals look upon democracy
as an ambiguous force at best, one reason may
be found in our received conception of political corruption — the abuse of public office for private gain. ... This conception marginalizes the political dimensions of corruption — in particular, corruption of the processes of contestation through which common purposes, norms, rules are created; the institutional patterns that support and justify corruption; and the political cultures within which actions, institutions, and even speech might be judged corrupt.

...[T]he basic norm of democracy is empowered inclusion of those affected in collective decisions
and actions. ... In a democracy, meanings of political corruption gain their normative traction by reference to this basic and abstract norm of democracy. Political corruption in a democracy is a form of unjustifiable exclusion or disempowerment, marked by normative duplicity on the part of the corrupt. Corruption is marked not only by exclusion...but also by covertness and secrecy, even as inclusive norms are affirmed in public. Stated otherwise, the norm
of inclusion is not denied, but rather corrupted. Corruption within a democracy is thus a specific kind of disempowerment that I shall call duplicitous exclusion. Thus, in addition to the substantive harms often associated with corruption in democracies — inefficiencies, misdirected public funds, uneven enforcements of rights, etc. — we can think of corruption as damaging democratic processes.

Hasen’s critique suggests that Americans Elect is corrupt in just this sense. Even as it publicly affirms norms of inclusion, it provides a tiny and unaccountable group with a veto power that will be exercised to ensure that a ‘centrist’ candidate is chosen.

Lessig does seem to play up the traditional quid pro quo transaction — as though the most likely potential scenario for political corruption would be one in which
a specific funder (or funders) used Americans Elect to gain access to a specific candidate in order to extract (a) personal benefit(s). Of course, this is a straw man that Lessig easily knocks down, as soon as he points out that the donors are anonymous.

But, for some observers, it is not down at the granular, personal level of quid pro quo that the opportunity and the risk for corruption is most evident at Americans Elect. Rather, it is up at the systemic, process level — the level that, in order to see what's going on, requires a wider-angle lens that Lessig seems unwilling to use.

 

::   ::   ::

 

IT'S IMPORTANT to understand that Americans Elect has a formally stated policy of neutrality that — if its Board actually was to enforce the policy — would go a long way toward assuaging concerns that individual directors or advisory board members or, indeed, the Americans Elect corporation as a whole, were pushing specific candidates.

The problem is that the Board does not seem to enforce the policy. At all.

According to Americans Elect's By-Laws, both Directors (Section 4.12) and Officers (Section 6.1)

shall not communicate or act in favor of or
in opposition to any candidate for President
or Vice President at any time before the adjournment of the online nominating convention of Americans Elect.

In a much broader mandate that would seem to include members of the Board of Advisors and anyone else who holds a titled American Elect position, the corporation's Rules (Section 10.0) state:

Until the Americans Elect ticket has been selected by majority vote of participating Delegates in the Nominating Round of voting, Americans Elect shall be neutral with respect to all Candidates and shall not endorse, oppose, advance, or advocate any particular Candidate.

Note that no distinction is made between "draft" and "declared" candidates.

And, yet — for months — there has been a steady
stream of Americans Elect directors, advisory board members and other personnel playing what Hasen calls "kissy-face" with various dream candidates. This is just a sampling:

1

In Hasen's example, former New Jersey governor and Americans Elect director Christie Todd Whitman joins former Oklahoma governor and U.S. senator David Boren in a statement — sent out as an Americans Elect press release — praising outgoing U.S. senator Olympia Snowe and quoting Snowe's citation of the "vital need for the political center in order for our democracy to flourish."

2

Prior to this, Whitman went to the media at least seven times in favor of Jon Huntsman.

3

Courtesy of Lessig's Sunlight Foundation, we know that Americans Elect advisory board member Lynn Forester
de Rothschild held a thousand-dollar-a-head cocktail reception for Huntsman in January.

4

Also in January, a few weeks after Buddy Roemer declared his intention to seek the Americans Elect nomination, Americans Elect National Campus Director Nick Troiano staged (as in "stunt") a handful of Americans Elect promotional videos featuring Roemer.

5

Just a couple of weeks ago, the day after Roemer dropped his Republican bid and re-declared his Americans Elect candidacy, Lessig himself went on MSNBC's "Morning Joe" and outlined what he sees as
the need to "knit together these 'outsider' movements" calling for solutions on issues like the deficit and to address the "underlying [financial] corruption issue."

This triggered the following exchange with Joe Scarborough (video starting at 3:06):

Scarborough: Professor, do you agree with me that, of all the candidates that are out
there right now in 2012, Buddy Roemer fits this profile best — and actually, I believe, has the best message, pure message, for 2012?

Lessig: Absolutely! I've been with Buddy,
I had him at my house ... Absolutely! ... Absolutely! I don't believe in his policies, but
I believe in his reform, and I think — you're right — that he is the one candidate that
would have done something.

6

"Would have done something." As if to suggest that Roemer no longer was running. And yet, only a week later, Lessig was back on the Scarborough set, with Roemer himself (video). Watch this clip and tell me that both guests are not campaigning for Buddy Roemer:

 

 

7

Just this week, Lessig took his Roemer campaign to Twitter:

That afternoon, the Coffee Party — another group on whose advisory board Lessig serves — re-tweeted Lessig's call to its 12,000 Twitter followers, illustrating that none of this political activity by Americans Elect, its directors, advisory board members and other staff is happening in a vacuum.

There is, of course, the possibility that Lessig has his
own agenda for Americans Elect that doesn't jibe with
the No Labels-ish storyline this is being promoted by its founder, directors, and officers — a storyline that also, one assumes, was "bought" by its seed funders.

But it's not all clear how Lessig's reported desire to lead others in "occupying Americans Elect" for a specific "reform" candidate — and, indeed, going on MSNBC ("Morning Joe") twice in the last month to campaign
for, and with, Buddy Roemer — squares with Lessig's being an Americans Elect advisory board member who, according to Americans Elect's own Rules and By-Laws,
is bound by a strict neutrality policy that places what
he is doing, well...out of bounds.

8

A couple of weeks ago, Americans Elect advisory board member Mark McKinnon was on the panel for Jon Huntsman's much-discussed appearance on "Morning Joe." The newly disencumbered Huntsman, who had recently left the Republican race, made news by saying that "this duopoly is tired" and calling for "something to compete against the duopoly," "some sort of third-party movement," "some alternative voice out there."

McKinnon, for his part, was full of praise for Huntsman, saying (video starting at 7:38):

I love everything you’re saying, and I’ve always liked your politics, and I’m sorry you didn’t make it through the Republican primary, but I think you’ll — can provide real political leadership, whatever you do going forward.

When asked by Scarborough (starting at 11:09), "Can an independent be elected President in 2012?", McKinnon offered a more specific idea of what Huntsman's "real political leadership" might look like:

Just on a blind poll, even when people don't even know who the ticket would be, 25 percent of voters say they'd support [an independent ticket]....Put Jon Huntsman on that ticket, and you'd get up to 51 percent, I guarantee.

9

Last November, McKinnon shared the stage with Americans Elect CEO Kahlil Byrd, Washington Post national political correspondent Karen Tumulty and political consultant Tad Devine at a moderated Harvard forum that considered the viability of an Americans Elect ticket in 2012. At one point — video starting at 20:53 — the moderator asks McKinnon what "type" of candidate he thinks would step up to run under the Americans Elect banner. McKinnon — “just off the top of my head” (but then reading off a piece of paper, suggesting that the question is a set-up) — obliges with the following roster of nine:

Americans Elect director Christie Todd Whitman, Jon Huntsman, Chuck Hagel, Bob Kerrey, Condoleezza Rice, Tom Brokaw, Joe Lieberman, Evan Bayh, and John Chambers.

He reads the prepared list, with the barely disguised delight of a child naughtily but irrepressibly telling a secret — leaving no doubt that, between the question and the answer, "would" has turned into "should."

 

 

10

And then there's this slide from the Americans Elect presentation that Nick Troiano put together in January

offering these 49 names (originally 50, including
Steve Jobs):

Does this list look random to you? Sure, there are a
few token "liberals" here. But the main point of the list seems to be to illustrate what Americans Elect sees as the tolerable limits of "left" and "right."

And, with few exceptions, everybody here — which includes most of those already mentioned, as well as former U.S. Comptroller General David Walker, who, right after being promoted by original Americans Elect champion of "radical centrism" Thomas Friedman as "a third voice for 2012," got his own kissy press release from Americans Elect — falls safely and uniformly with range defined by "conservative Democrat," all the way over on the center, and "moderate Republican," all the way over on the center right.

Which is not surprising, really, given CEO Kahlil Byrd's remark, at the Harvard forum, that "America is a center-right country" — a comment that Byrd rendered blithely, as if to be voicing something that was so obvious that only a fool would try to dispute it.

But who created this list? Certainly, it wasn't National Campus Director Nick Troiano, who just graduated from Georgetown last year.

More likely, it was the same people who created the list of 70-plus people — the list above, plus another 20 or so? — that, according to Byrd, Americans Elect has been trying to sell on the idea of running on an Americans Elect ticket.

Is this Americans Elect wish list being curated by some, or all, of the corporation's "Leadership"? Certainly.

Are some, or all, of the group's financial backers on
this Leadership list? Surely.

Are these backers also part of this recruiting effort — including deciding whom is to be recruited? Very likely.

Which specific backers are helping with recruiting decisions? Are the recruiting suggestions of these backers being weighted, either explicitly or implicitly, depending on the levels of their contributions? These things, we don't know.

But this much is certain: None of these promotional activities, on the part of Americans Elect directors, advisors and other personnel qualify as "neutral,"
under the Rules and By-Laws of Americans Elect.

And Americans Elect is doing a lot more than just building a voting platform and creating ballot access.

 

::   ::    ::

 

ADDING to the dynamic that makes Americans Elect's agenda — or, to be more accurate, its owning of its agenda — as dark as its money, some official leaders of Americans Elect are in the habit of promoting Americans Elect and even promoting specific candidates, in the media and in other public settings, without disclosing their formal ties to the organization.

As we've seen, Lawrence Lessig never mentioned,
in his posts defending Americans Elect's financial non-disclosure practices, that he is on the group's Board of Advisors. Nor did he mention it in his appearances on "Morning Joe," when he was promoting Americans Elect declared candidate Buddy Roemer. Nor, for that matter, did either of the hosts or any of the panelists mention it. Nor was he provided with an onscreen caption that connected him in any way with Americans Elect. In fact, although Roemer made a cryptic reference to a "unity ticket," Americans Elect wasn't mentioned at all, in
either of these segments — which is odd, given that
they took place in the immediate wake of Roemer's having dropped his Republican bid and re-declared his Americans Elect candidacy.

Ditto, Americans Elect advisory board member Mark McKinnon, who — in addition to his Harvard appearance — has been a ubiquitous presence on NBC political news programs where Americans Elect has been the main topic; where Americans Elect or potential Americans Elect candidates have been analyzed and discussed; or where McKinnon has introduced and promoted Americans Elect in the context of another discussion. Over the last six months, McKinnon has appeared on such programs or program segments hosted by David Gregory, Andrea Mitchell, Joe Scarborough, Mika Brzezinki, Dylan Ratigan and Chuck Todd.

In some cases, actually, he appears alongside Americans Elect COO Elliot Ackerman. But — as you can see here, here, here, here, here, here, here and here — in no case does McKinnon ever self-identify as being what he is: on the official Americans Elect team. The hosts, for their part, identify McKinnon only as a "political analyst" or "political strategist" or as a co-founder of No Labels.

As Jim Cook of Irregular Times points out (with linked reference to similar examples involving Americans Elect advisory board member and Michael Bloomberg pollster Douglas Schoen):

This is part of a pattern of Americans Elect corporate leaders going on TV and promoting their Americans Elect political brand under the neutral guise of “expert” without disclosing their leadership positions within Americans Elect.

A person hawking a product on a television news show should disclose (or have disclosed for them) their affiliation with the corporation selling the product. A person who will not disclose their affiliation is being unethical.
A news show that does not disclose such affiliations when they are public is not doing its job. A corporation that sends its leaders to sell a political solution in disguise has not earned your trust.

Transparency? Hell, even the Americans Elect FAQs are buried as two 3-month-old posts — here and here — on the Web site's unsearchable News feed.

 

::   ::   ::

 

A COUPLE of weeks ago, Kahlil Byrd, speaking at
a panel discussion at New York University, cited the super PAC as one aspect of the two-party system that dramatizes the need for the kind of presidential ticket that Americans Elect is trying to produce. He was quoted as saying that:

the super PAC...seems like such an enormous thing. But it's 15 or 20 guys — and women — who are giving a lot of money and tilting campaigns one way or the other.

OK. But — given this and this and this and this and this — how is Americans Elect substantially any different, in political terms?

Of course, even in political terms, Americans Elect doesn't look exactly how we expect a super PAC to look. Which is the point of the term "shadow super PAC."

There is one snippet of Americans Elect messaging
that, when placed alongside everything else, seems
to reveal — perhaps with unintended candor — what Americans Elect really is about and why it's a problem.

The citation, above, about Americans Elect director Christie Todd Whitman's habit of promoting Jon Huntsman, highlighted Whitman's December 2011 interview with Philadelphia Inquirer reporter Joelle Farrell. Here's the relevant exchange (emphasis mine):

Farrell: You've said you like former Utah Gov. Jon Huntsman. Do you think he could be the Americans Elect nominee?

Whitman: To me, he's the type of candidate that would appeal to them.

That's the same word, remember, that Americans Elect advisory board member Mark McKinnon had used at Harvard, a month earlier. I suggested that this particular moment, between McKinnon and the moderator — which provided McKinnon with an opportunity to read his list of nine favorites — seems a little staged (starting at 20:53; emphasis mine):

Moderator: Who's gonna be — who's the type of candidate? Mark mentioned all the great — all these great Americans who could be great presidents, or who certainly think in their own minds they could be great presidents. Who are the types of people you think might step up and actually put their name forward, or to have their name put forward at this nominating convention?....

McKinnon: Uh — sure — well — just off the top of my head, I'll tell you the types of people? —

Moderator: Yeah, types, I'm not gonna ask for specifics —

Of course, McKinnon plunges right into nine specifics. And notice how handy he is with that list.

Notice, too, that Americans Elect CEO Kahlil Byrd, who is sitting next to McKinnon on the stage, doesn't challenge McKinnon's riff. To the contrary, he seems to join in the chuckle over the reaction to someone's (his own or Tad Devine's) reaction that "those are good people."

But why is any Americans Elect director or advisory board member talking about what "type" of candidate would — or should — make a "love connection" with Americans Elect? After all, Americans Elect is just creating a voting platform and a ballot line. Right,
Kahlil? Right, Eliott? Christie? Mark? Larry? Right?!!

One well-placed writer cracked that, with his remarks
on "Morning Joe," Jon Huntsman was sending a
"Bat Signal" to Americans Elect.

Of course, as we've seen, Americans Elect has for months been sending Bat Signals to Jon Huntsman and others in Huntsman's "fiscally conservative, socially and culturally moderate" mold. And, just as the original Bat Signal always was revealed against the backdrop of a cloud, the constant, drip-drip pulse of statements and lists with which Americans Elect — through its directors, advisory board members, and staff, as well as through its own corporate news channel — has promoted specific candidates now has created a political tag cloud that reveals a highly specific ideological image.

 

::   ::   ::

 

HOLD THAT thought, while you pay attention to this...

According to Section 8.0 of the corporate Rules of Americans Elect (emphases mine):

The Presidential and Vice Presidential ticket nominated by Americans Elect shall...consist of persons of differing ideological perspective or positions on the Platform of Questions to result in a balanced coalition ticket responsive to the vast majority of citizens....Subject to reversal by majority vote of all registered Delegates, the Candidate Certification Committee shall determine whether any proposed ticket is balanced by reference to candidates’ responses to the Platform of Questions....

So what are the Platform of Questions and the
Candidate Certification Committees? According to
Section 5.1 of the corporate By-Laws, these both
are "Standing Committees of Americans Elect"; and, according to Sections 5.3.2 (Platform of Questions Committee) and 5.4.2 (Candidate Certification Committee) of the By-Laws, the members of both committees are "appointed by the Board," "serve
at the pleasure of the Board" and "may be removed without cause."

Let's take a walk in the weeds, shall we?

According to Section 5.3.1 of the By-Laws (emphases mine), the Platform of Questions Committee — which, remember, is "appointed by" and "serves at the pleasure of" the Board...

shall be responsible for developing
proposed questions for submission to the Delegates; polling the Delegates to determine which questions to include in the final Platform of Questions, as well as any amendments thereto; tendering the Platform of Questions
to all persons who are identified either as potential or drafted candidates for Americans Elect nomination...disseminating all responses by candidates or draftees to the Platform of Questions; ensuring that candidate and draftee answers to the Platform of Questions are responsive and seeking responsive answers thereto; and, subject to the direction of
the Board, development of supplemental Platform of Questions as national and world events may dictate.

According to Section 5.4.1 of the By-Laws,
the Candidate Certification Committee — also
a committee that is "appointed by" and that "serves
at the pleasure of" the Board (emphasis mine)...

shall be responsible for certifying that candidates and draftees for the offices
of President and Vice President meet all constitutional eligibility, as well as to develop and apply criteria of demonstrated achievements based on qualifications
of past Presidents and Vice Presidents,
to ensure that only persons capable of performing the duties of President and Vice President are eligible for voting by the registered Delegates, subject only to a majority vote to the contrary by all registered Delegates....

Still with me? OK. But what, exactly, is this "Platform of Questions"? According to Sections 2.1.3.1 and 2.1.3.2 of the Rules (emphases mine):

“Comprehensive Questions” shall mean
the detailed questionnaire posted on the
Website to be answered by Delegates that shall be considered by the Platform of Questions Committee in preparing the Platform of Questions...and “Platform of Questions” shall mean the Delegate-driven and Platform of Questions Committee-refined questions posed to and answered by all Delegates and Candidates to ensure informed decisions by Delegates and unambiguous positions by Candidates ... Development of [the] Platform of Questions shall be determined by the Platform of Questions Committee in accordance with the Americans Elect Bylaws after consideration of Delegates’ responses
to the Comprehensive Questions and may be supplemented from time to time before
the nominating round of voting.

Do you begin to see a picture emerge? Do you see how much latitude the Board and its Committees have and how little influence the non-Board and -Committee delegates are guaranteed? (Yes, I understand that there is language about how the Board's decision is "subject to reversal by majority vote of all registered Delegates." But the voter suppression on display in the recent test case of the Board's response to the first delegate challenge to one of its decisions — documented (in sequence) here, here and here — should disabuse anyone of the notion that this Board is going to "go gently into that good night.")

Look, again, at Section 8.0 of the Rules (emphases mine):

The Presidential and Vice Presidential ticket nominated by Americans Elect shall...consist of persons of differing ideological perspective or positions on the Platform of Questions to result in a balanced coalition ticket responsive to the vast majority of citizens....Subject to reversal by majority vote of all registered Delegates, the Candidate Certification Committee shall determine whether any proposed ticket is balanced by reference to candidates’ responses to the Platform of Questions....

Bearing in mind everything else — including the Bat Signals and the tag clouds — do you see how "balance" begins to look like code for "type"?

 

::   ::   ::

 

HERE'S the thing...

The same Americans Elect board that is refusing to enforce its own policy of neutrality — the same board that is permitting and enabling a specific "centrist" ideological profile to emerge in the public imagination as the Americans Elect "type" — also is the board that has determined that an ideologically "balanced" ticket is what is required, and that has empowered itself to decide what qualifies as "balance."

Lawrence Lessig wonders, in his two posts...

• "How is the secret money having any
  secret effect?"
• "How could the secrecy of the funders
  corrupt anything?"
• "How [are] secret donors...going to steer
  this wide platform of potential competitors
  one way or the other?"

Here are some questions in return:

Given the extraordinary power that the corporate board of Americans Elect has secured for itself in shaping the eventual Americans Elect ticket...

Given, too, Americans Elect's pattern of promoting only those candidates that answer to a specific ideological profile...

• Is it reasonable to believe that each of the 50 or
  so wealthy secret backers of Americans Elect who floated the corporation secret six- and seven-figure checks did so without having been provided assurances by Americans Elect that Americans Elect, for its part, would be stacking the deck for exactly the kind of "centrist" nominee and ticket that it's been promoting for all these months?
• What influence do these secret backers have in deciding who is on the Platform of Questions Committee, what the questions are, and how
  the questions are framed?
• What influence do these secret backers have in deciding who is on the Candidate Certification Committee, how "balance" is defined, and which nominee and ticket is certified as the most "balanced"?

And, especially given that Americans Elect, its directors, advisory board members and staff have whispered the actual names of people who, it would seem, all conform to an Americans Elect "type" of "fiscally conservative, socially and culturally moderate" candidate...

• Does the fact that Americans Elect seems so clearly to be working to ensure a specific type of nominee and ticket, rather than a specific one, really make the group any less "political," for
  IRS purposes?
• And does this fact that Americans Elect seems so clearly to be working to ensure a specific type of nominee and ticket, rather than a specific one, really make it any less a sign of political corruption, that Americans Elect presents itself
  to the public as a neutral model of openness
  and transparency, while acting in a contradictory fashion — and that Americans Elect pays for
  this exercise with tens of millions of dollars of money from funders that Americans Elect
  helps to keep secret?

Lessig wonders "how secret donors are going to
steer this wide platform of potential competitors
one way or the other." As I hope I've helped to demonstrate, here's how they already are doing it:

By funding a corporation and a process that
consistently enfranchises one specific type of
candidate (and supporters, including delegate
supporters, of such a candidate) — and that, in so
doing, consistently disenfranchises all other types
of candidate (and supporters, including delegate supporters, of such candidates).

If you are a potential candidate, or supporter of such
a candidate, who doesn't fit the American Elect profile, why bother participating, if you've been given reason
to believe that the fix already is in?

Even leaving the money out of it, what Americans
Elect is doing answers to the definition of the more insidious brand of political corruption that Henry Farrell
highlights — one in which, as Mark Warren writes, "the norm of inclusion is not denied, but rather corrupted." Take the secret money into account, and one also has the more obvious kind of corruption that Lessig has yet to acknowledge as a possibility.

So, one has to wonder: Exactly what kind of "social welfare" does Americans Elect have in mind?

Lessig talks a lot about quid pro quo, and my guess is that there is a quid pro quo going on at Americans Elect. But it's not the quid pro quo that Lessig rightly criticizes elsewhere in the political system — i.e., the one between a funder(s) and a specific candidate or elected official, in which the candidate or official is the one responsible for the "deliverable."

Rather, it's a quid pro quo between funders and a
specific organization. In this case, the corporate entity of Americans Elect is the one responsible for the deliverable — and the deliverable is a "centrist" nominee and ticket.

Of course, the contours of this new kind of quid pro quo are even more difficult to detect and trace than those of the old one — another reason why "shadow super PAC"
is such an apt term.

Meet the new boss. Just like the old boss — but with slicker PR.

Shadowy? To be sure. But hidden in plain sight.

Does Americans Elect Really Have 400,000+ Identity-Verified Delegates?

Delegate status: SSN, security check and verified ID required (click to enlarge)

Maybe closer to 30,000. See Update, below. —JL

Yesterday, Americans Elect was out with a press release that included the following claim (emphasis mine):

Americans Elect delegates, which now total more than 400,000 and counting, can draft and support a presidential candidate of their choice and nominate a presidential ticket that will appear on general election ballots nationwide this November.

Is this true? Does Americans Elect really have more
than 400,000 identity-verified delegates?

What evidence there is suggests that it possibly is
not even close to that number.

 

::   ::   ::

 

AS I LEARNED a couple of weeks ago, when I went
to AmericansElect.org and completed the delegate verification process, becoming an Americans Elect delegate requires a bit of a commitment. It's not as
simple as just "signing up."

Indeed, the corporate By-Laws of Americans Elect
specify two distinct levels of participation: Members
and Delegates. Section 2.2, defining "Members,"
states (emphasis mine):

All persons who are citizens of the United States may register online as Members
of Americans Elect...regardless of their membership in any political party. All Members who are registered voters
shall be eligible to become Delegates of Americans Elect upon verification of their lawful voter registration status by means of verification as determined by the Board. Members may participate in all activities of Americans Elect but shall not vote unless verified as Delegates.

Section 2.3 goes on to define "Delegates" as

Members who have submitted sufficient information to permit verification of their lawful status as registered voters and citizens of the United States, and who have been so verified by Americans Elect, and who have accepted the Delegate Pledge as provided by the Rules Committee.

As to the specifics of verification, the corporate Rules
of Americans Elect (Sections 1.0 and 1.1) detail that

[a]ny natural person who is a citizen of the United States, age 18 or older, registered to vote in any state or the District of Columbia
on the date he or she casts a vote in the Americans Elect Convention, and entitled
to vote in the election for President of the United States shall be qualified to be a voting Delegate of Americans Elect, upon submission of...[f]ull name as reflected on his or her voter registration; date of birth; residential address including street, apartment number if applicable, city or town, state, and zip code that matches the public voter registration address; and such additional publicly available information to verify status as a citizen and registered voter as Americans Elect may request.

 

::   ::   ::

 

There are four basic steps to becoming an identity-verified delegate of Americans Elect, all of which
are to be completed via the verification interface
at AmericanElect.org.

The first two of these steps — providing a genuine
email address and choosing a "strong" PIN — echo the familiar registration process at many Web sites today, and would seem to correspond directly to the By-Laws' definition of Members as "persons who...register online."

Indeed, after completing these first two steps, Americans Elect provided me with my own "account" and a user number — 369310 —
which, you'll notice, is very close to the "400,000"
of the press release.

But in order to be eligible...

1
to provide clicks of "support" for
draft or declared candidates;

2
to draft candidates;

3
to actually to vote for candidates; and

4
to challenge decisions of the Board
and its committees

...one must become a delegate — which means completing the remaining two steps.

These steps involve providing one's full name, full residential address, date of birth, and last four digits
of one's Social Security number — then correctly answering several multiple-choice security questions
that are generated by this information.

Only then — when one's "identity" has been "verified" — is one a delegate, with all the privileges that obtain.

 

::    ::    ::

 

HERE'S where it gets interesting.

If you go to AmericansElect.org, you'll see on the
home page a list of the "Most Supported" declared
and draft candidates.

The number beneath each candidate's name corresponds to what Americans Elect calls "support clicks." These clicks can be provided only by identity-verified delegates. If you click through to a specific candidate's page but are not logged in or are not a delegate, scrolling over the "Add My Support" button generates a pop-up that reads "You must be a delegate to perform this action."

If you drill down to the 20 or so "most supported" candidates — whether "declared" or "draft" — you'll
see that there has been a total of only about 16,000 clicks of "support" from delegates.

The thing is, the vast majority of "support clicks" are concentrated in this top tier. The "least supported" of this top tier of "most supported" candidates, David Walker, has about 150 clicks of "support." But, 25 or so candidates "down" the list, one already has arrived at candidates with around 50 or fewer "support clicks"; and 25 or so candidates later, the "support" for candidates has fallen to below 30 clicks. Out of 30-plus pages of draft candidates, each with 10 candidates, the last 24 pages of candidates have 25 or fewer "support clicks" each. The last 17 pages of candidates each have 5 or fewer clicks. And the last 10 pages are filled with candidates who have only 1 click of "support."

::   ::   ::

 

Obviously, a lot people (and their friends) are supporting themselves and their heroes. It probably is a stretch
to say that there are 20,000 clicks of "support" in the entire system. Which should worry Americans Elect, given that — according to its own corporate Rules — the qualifying threshold for any candidate's participating in the first stage of its primary is at least 10,000 clicks (1,000 clicks from each of 10 states).

So let's stay with "16,000." That number would correspond to 16,000 unique delegates, if each of
these delegates clicked "support" for only one candidate. But delegates are allowed to "support" as many different candidates as they like — so the total number of these delegates that have engaged so far probably is significantly less. If each of these active delegates clicked "support" for two different candidates, there would be 8,000 delegates engaging with the Americans Elect process. If each was giving a "support click" to three candidates, the total number
of engaged delegates would drop to a little more
than 5,000.

 

::   ::    ::

 

BUT LET'S be generous. Let's assume that there are fully 16,000 Americans Elect delegates engaging with
the corporation's process.

Does this mean that Americans Elect has the 400,000 delegates that it claims — but that 384,000 of them are sitting on the sidelines right now?

Or does it mean that there are (at most) 16,000 active Americans Elect delegates (and maybe a few more inactive ones) — along with an additional 384,000-plus well-meaning citizens who went to the Americans Elect Web site and, with nothing more than an email address and a PIN number, registered as "members" but never got any further than that and never qualified as delegates?

I'm guessing the latter. But, either way, it appears
that Americans Elect is suffering from a very wide enthusiasm gap.

 

::   ::   ::

 

UPDATE: 26 May 2012

Jim Cook of Irregular Times today flags a new article
in which Americans Elect national press secretary
Ileana Wachtel is reported to have said this week
that (emphasis mine)

only 300 out of tens of thousands of people had problems with the website that couldn’t be resolved, mostly because of inaccurate voter registration data.

Cook observes:

Only 300 out of “tens of thousands” had trouble registering as delegates? Tens of thousands? Counting generously, that means less than a hundred thousand people registered as delegates. If less than a hundred thousand people registered as delegates, that means Americans Elect inflated its delegate count in publicity materials by at least 400% — and most likely by more.

The true number of identity-verified Americans Elect delegates comes into even sharper focus, if you line up Wachtel’s “only 300 out of tens of thousands of people” with another mathematical clue attributed to Wachtel
and first reported on 9 May by Jonathan Tilove of the Times-Picayune (emphasis mine):

...Wachtel said that “less than 1 percent have tried and failed to register”....

Americans Elect CEO Kahlil Byrd had used this same number, in his response to a question about delegate verification that was asked of him during a Reddit forum on 6 March (emphasis mine):

Verification is going well, we're experiencing less than 1% of people having difficulty.

Here's the thing: If the total number of delegates
was the “more than 400,000” that Americans Elect
has been claiming since at least early March of this
year, then “less than 1 percent” would be a number
in the neighborhood of 4,000.

But 4,000 is nowhere close to 300.

If — as it seems reasonable to deduce — “only 300″ corresponds directly to “less than 1 percent,” then the total number of delegates is just north of 30,000.

This tracks well with the fact that there currently is
a total of only about 51,000 “support clicks” in the
entire Americans Elect online system and that delegates were permitted to click for as many candidates as they wished.

If the math I’m suggesting here is correct, then Americans Elect has exactly about three "tens of thousands" of delegates to its credit, meaning that —
as measured against its claims of "more than 400,000" delegates — Americans Elect has been inflating its delegate count by something like 1,333%.

The obvious caveat, of course, is that these calculations work, only if both of the numbers that Wachtel offers are accurate.

In any case: The verifiable estimate of the total number
of support clicks in the Americans Elect online system
is ~51,000.

The further the delegate count moves away from
51,000 and toward 0, the more believable — and, actually, better for Americans Elect — it seems, since
a lower count suggests a delegate pool that is small
but that is composed primarily of true believers who persevered to be verified and then all went on to click support for one or more candidates. (In theory, of course, this scenario also includes the possibility of a delegate pool of 30,000, to use the total suggested by Wachtel's numbers, but with less than half of these delegates doing all the clicking.)

As the delegate count moves in the opposite direction, approaching and surpassing 51,000, it would seem to
get less believable, since — especially if one assumes that some significant number of delegates did click for multiple candidates — higher counts suggest ever-higher numbers of people who went to all the trouble of getting verified and then couldn't be bothered to do anything with their empowered status.

If, in fact, the second scenario is as believable — or
even more so — than the first, well, that truly is a(nother) damning sign for Americans Elect.

In New Board Ruling, An Early Sign of Financial Trouble at Americans Elect

Americans Elect leaders Eliot Ackerman and Mark McKinnon on 21 Feb 2012

One of the most salient criticisms of Americans Elect —
a group that bills itself as seeking to "open up the political process" and "change politics as usual" — is
its dogged refusal, using the legal shield of its status
as a 501c4 corporation, to disclose the names of its financial backers.

This matters, in part, because Americans Elect got
off the ground with $20 million of seed money given by only 50-some anonymous donors. That's 50 nameless investors ponying up an average of $400,000 apiece, although, in one rare case in which the name is known, Americans Elect founder and CEO Peter Ackerman
has given at least $1.55 million and, according to Bloomberg — the news organization, not the draft Americans Elect presidential candidate — more
than $5 million.

(Sidebar: How is it that Lawrence Lessig, one of the most informed and eloquent critics of the undue influence of money over politics — and one of the most ardent and public advocates for financial transparency from elected officials, corporations and political institutions — winds up on the Board of Advisors, a.k.a. the Leadership, of a political group with such a shadowy financial pedigree?)

Americans Elect has sought to rationalize its financial secrecy, by assuring the public that all of its early high-dollar contributions are structured as loans that will be repaid, and that, when all is said and done, no single donor will have contributed more than $10,000.

• On its Web site — slide number 8, under "What
  are people asking?" — Americans Elect says it
  "is funded by individual contributions, and intends to pay back the bulk of our initial financing as more delegates join, so that no single individual will have contributed more than $10K."

• Underscoring the point, Americans Elect last October published an open letter, signed by Americans Elect CEO Kahlil Byrd, saying that "every donation above $10,000 is structured as
  a loan. We aspire for these loans to be paid back by the time this organization completes its core mission in 2012. If the American people embrace the Americans Elect mission as their own, then no one will have given more than $10,000. Growing evidence suggests that this will happen."

• And, just last week (video above), Americans
  Elect COO Eliot Ackerman, appearing with Americans Elect Advisory Board member Mark McKinnon on MSNBC, told Chuck Todd — who
  had asked Ackerman (starting at 6:14) when
  and if Americans Elect was going to disclose its funders — that "all of [the funders'] donations have been given as loans."

The theory — or, depending on one's point of view,
the line — has been that, eventually, grassroots financial support of Americans Elect will kick in. The Republican nomination will be settled in February. A new wave
of disillusioned Republicans will join disillusioned Democrats and independents looking to Americans
Elect for an answer. High-profile "centrists" will declare their intention to run for the Americans Elect nomination. And, as an index of enthusiasm for this new alternative, "ordinary citizens" will flock to the Americans Elect Web site and, "Yes We Can"-style, will click through hundreds of thousands, perhaps millions, of small-dollar donations.

Ultimately, in other words, "the people" will be the ones to reimburse the hedge funders and private-equity types who seeded the initial $20 million. Thus will the role of Americans Elect as a catalyst of democratic renewal be authenticated in financial terms.

And, at the end of the day, as CEO Kahlil Byrd
promised — albeit with caveats attached, as befits
Byrd's training as a political operative — "no one will have given more than $10,000."

That's been the story — and Americans Elect has been sticking to it.

::   ::   ::

 

SO IT WAS jarring to read the following new ruling of the Americans Elect Board of Directors, posted this morning to the Americans Elect Web site:

The Americans Elect Board unanimously voted to ensure that no supporter would cover more than 20% of AE’s budget. In the event that any one supporter exceeds that percentage, there are provisions created to expedite repayments to that supporter.

What this Board decision basically says is that as few
as five people can fund the whole damned thing.

As to the language about the "provisions created
to expedite repayments" to any supporter whose
financial contribution exceeds 20%, well — what "provisions," pray? In fact, the provisions clause
suggests the possibility of a loophole that would enable
a 20% donor to exceed 20% by contributing to one
or more other donors an additional sum — an offset
that would bring the other donor's contribution "up"
or "down," depending on the bookkeeping, but that Americans Elect could spin, in Clintonian fashion, as being not a donation to Americans Elect but a
transaction between private individuals.

This move by the Americans Elect board would seem to put even more pressure on Americans Elect to disclose who its funders are. (Are you listening, Lawrence?)

It also strongly suggests that Americans Elect is not getting — and does not expect to get — significant financial support at the grassroots level of delegates, Web site registrants and Facebook "like"-ers. At least, not significant enough — and not quick enough — to make good on all of the promises that it may have made to all of the seed investors from whom Americans Elect has taken high-dollar loans.

Indeed, the counter-scenario that this new ruling opens up is that it will not be the grassroots, "the people," who repay these seed investors in Americans Elect — but, rather, that wealthy donors who have not yet topped out the new 20% maximum (or maybe even some who have) are being asked to increase their donations by way of reimbursing investors who are having second thoughts.

Are second- and third-tier investors in Americans Elect getting a little nervous? Nervous that, at this late date — March 2012 — Americans Elect still has not caught fire, either among citizens or among potential candidates?

Stay tuned.

 

Doctoroff, Bloomberg & Americans Elect: The Plot Thickens

From the National Draft Committee for Mike Bloomberg page at AmericansElect.org

Last Thursday, I offered some speculation that — despite his frequent protestations to the contrary —
the Democrat-turned-Republican-turned-independent mayor of New York City, Michael Bloomberg, might actually be getting a little bit more serious about testing the waters for a presidential run in 2012.

Bloomberg and his associates long had expressed interest in the possibility of using Americans Elect
as a vehicle for such a run. And there was plenty of evidence to suggest that the feeling was mutual.

Now, an attorney and former journalist named Andrew Doctoroff had just published, within the last four weeks, three pieces arguing for the necessity and viability of
an independent presidential candidacy in 2012.

The thing is, Doctoroff's brother, Daniel, was
Bloomberg's deputy mayor from 2001 to 2007,
before joining Bloomberg LP, where he now serves
as President and CEO.

Indeed, in the longest of Doctoroff's three pieces — a 40-page research paper (pdf) titled "An Assessment of the Viability of an Independent Presidential Candidacy in 2012" — Doctoroff, who never mentioned Bloomberg by name, painted a portrait of the ideal independent candidate that looked an awful lot like, well, Michael Bloomberg.

And Doctoroff's sudden spate of electoral analysis
got its first airing on the Web site of — yep —
Americans Elect.

Might there be something to all this?

 

:: :: ::

 

DANA RUBINSTEIN of Capital — the "online news publication about how things work in New York,"
founded in 2010 by Josh Benson and Tom McGeveran, two veterans of the New York Observer — decided to
call Andrew Doctoroff, to try to find out. She's up with a new piece that details the results of her conversation.

According to Doctoroff, his published analysis involved "no coordination with Bloomberg’s folks at all" — and, unless and until there's evidence to the contrary, there's no reason to doubt that.

But, in the end, Doctoroff did "sing" to Rubinstein the finale that was waiting in the wings of all of his published pieces: "I wish [Bloomberg] would" run. Shortly, I will come to one reason why Doctoroff's saying this is quite problematic.

But certainly — surely — it would be disingenuous of Doctoroff to suggest that he didn't didn't have Bloomberg in mind while writing a paper that lays out this fairly specific personal financial benchmark for the success
of an independent presidential candidate in 2012:

In 2012, if the political climate does not
change significantly in the months ahead,
an independent candidate should be able to eclipse the performance of Perot, garnering a significantly higher percentage of the popular vote. Obviously, this assessment also assumes that an independent candidate would be able to spend on his or her campaign an amount of money (adjusted for inflation) comparable to what Perot spent in 1992, i.e., $73 million.

Adjusted for inflation, Perot's personal spend
would be something on the order of $120 million in
2012. There are exceedingly few people mentioned as prospective (Americans Elect) independent candidates whose net-worth ceilings are high enough to provide for that kind of outlay. Does Jon Huntsman have a spare $120 million? Christie Whitman? I don't know. But what everybody — including Doctoroff — does know is that Mike Bloomberg has the cash.

 

:: :: ::

 

I ALSO still contend that Doctoroff would not have financed and produced a 40-page research paper — including enlisting the aid of a University of Michigan doctoral student — without the reasonable guarantee that his work would find an influential audience.

Doctoroff told Rubinstein:

I didn't have any prior relationship with Americans Elect. None. I learned about it
from a Thomas Friedman column months ago. Then, when I was at a family reunion over Thanksgiving in Boston, and I was expressing consternation about our two-party system, my cousin said he knew [Americans Elect CEO] Kahlil Byrd....I said I was interested in what Americans Elect is trying to do. My cousin
(who lives in the Boston area), at my request, was nice enough to introduce Kahlil and me
via e-mail.

Doctoroff also told Rubinstein: "After I showed
Americans Elect my research paper in January, Americans Elect asked me to serve on its Board of Advisors, and I have agreed to do so."

Remember that the link to Doctoroff's research paper first was published on the Americans Elect Web site. My guess is that Doctoroff's decision to produce the paper grew out of his conversation with Americans
Elect CEO Kahlil Byrd — that, in effect, Americans
Elect commissioned Doctoroff's paper, even if they
didn't fund it.

Is Doctoroff's paper now part of the packet of briefing materials that Americans Elect is using to try to recruit candidates? Almost certainly.

Did Americans Elect offer Doctoroff a spot on its Board
of Advisors, in part, to say thanks for this contribution? Probably.

Does Americans Elect's effort to expand its resources
to include both Doctoroff's paper and Doctoroff himself also have specifically to do with its desire to make
a stronger case to Michael Bloomberg — one of the people Americans Elect most would like to recruit as
a candidate? Possibly.

 

:: :: ::

 

IT'S especially telling that Doctoroff did not disclose to Rubinstein his personal connections to Americans Elect — including his position on the Board of Advisors — until after she pressed for the information in a follow-up email.

In fact, it's Doctoroff's new position at Americans Elect that now should make his personal public advocacy of a Bloomberg candidacy problematic.

According to Americans Elect's By-Laws, both Directors and Officers "shall not communicate or act in favor of
or in opposition to any candidate for President or Vice President at any time before the adjournment of the online nominating convention of Americans Elect."

According to the group's Rules: "Until the Americans Elect ticket has been selected by majority vote of participating Delegates in the Nominating Round of voting, Americans Elect shall be neutral with respect to all Candidates and shall not endorse, oppose, advance,
or advocate any particular Candidate."

In other words: With his comments favoring a Bloomberg run, Doctoroff is in violation of American's Elect's stated policy on neutrality.

Alas, this policy has not kept several others at Americans Elect from making their personal preferences public.

But that is a matter for another post (soon).

Bloomberg Preparing to Come Out (As a Presidential Candidate)?

Douglas Schoen, paid advisor to both Michael Bloomberg and Americans Elect

[My follow-up to this piece is here. — JL]

The groups No Labels and Americans Elect will tell you that they simply are pragmatists and nonpartisans
who are trying to return the country to a politics of moderation and common sense.

In fact, the brand of fiscally conservative "centrism" — which is to say, center-right-ism — that these groups
are advancing, whether in public or behind the scenes,
is every bit as partisan and every bit as ideological as the "extremes" of "left" and "right" from which they claim to want to rescue the republic.

As it happens, there are are many connections between Americans Elect and No Labels. These connections
rarely come into sharper focus than when seen through the lens of informed speculation about New York mayor Michael Bloomberg's presidential intentions. And no one has been more thorough and persuasive in digging out and documenting these connections than the investigative journalist Jim Cook of Irregular Times.

Go to Irregular Times and read, in chronological order, everything that comes up under dedicated searches for "Americans Elect," "No Labels," and "Michael Bloomberg." You might find the exercise illuminating.

Yes, That Doctoroff

To all the "dots" that Jim Cook already has connected,
I offer the following for consideration.

On 31 January, Huffington Post published a piece by Andrew Doctoroff, "Why An Independent Presidential Candidate Can Succeed in 2012." Doctoroff identified himself as a "former journalist" and a "Detroit lawyer."

What Doctoroff didn't mention — either in his piece or
in his bio — is that his brother, Daniel Doctoroff, was Michael Bloomberg's deputy mayor from 2001 through 2007, or that Daniel Doctoroff left the Bloomberg administration to become President of Bloomberg LP
and now serves as the company's President and CEO.

What Doctoroff also didn't mention is that his piece originally was published five days earlier, as a "guest piece" on the Americans Elect Web site.

Bloomberg and Americans Elect

The truth is, observers long have sensed that Americans Elect was a stalking horse for a Bloomberg presidential candidacy in 2012. As Jim Cook reported in November 2010 (sources linked in the original):

New York Magazine's John Heilemann spoke to Michael Bloomberg aide Kevin Sheekey in October and reports that the New York City mayor's office has strong interest in using an Americans Elect presidential ballot line to run for President in 2012:

"One key factor, now as three years ago, is Bloomberg's ability to get onto the ballot nationwide. Thus are Sheekey and others eagerly monitoring a new outfit called Americans Elect, which plans to launch early next year. Backed by a wealthy private investor, Peter Ackerman, the group says...that it intends to hold a web-based convention to nominate a 'balanced presidential ticket that will bridge the vital center of American public opinion' and place
it 'on the ballot in all 50 states.' Ackerman has
already put $1.55 million into the project, with
more to come."

Americans Elect is in fact backed solely by Peter Ackerman's contributions of
$1.55 million in the second and third
quarters of 2010. Moreover, a dance between Bloomberg and Americans Elect would not be new. Americans Elect is, after all, the new incarnation of Unity08 — the two groups shared the same business address for a time. Before that, Unity08 shared its business address with the Draft Bloomberg Committee. Indeed, the founders of Unity08 registered the domain name draftmichaelbloomberg [dot] com in June 2007, at a time when Unity08 was insisting that it had no candidates in mind, that the people would choose, and also at a time when Unity08 leaders were holding secret talks with the Bloomberg camp.

Many of the senior leaders of Unity08 have moved on, or at least are not publicly involved with Americans Elect at this point. One senior Unity08 leader has remained: Peter Ackerman, co-chair of the Unity08 rules committee from the beginning, member of the Unity08 Board
of Directors, member of the Unity08 Advisory Committee and now Chairman of the Board
and sole funder of Americans Elect.

Telegraphing Intent?

On 8 February, Doctoroff was up on Huffington Post with a second piece — this time, "propping" Americans Elect by name — and, once again, Americans Elect flagged Doctoroff's opinion on its "feed."

Interesting, given Doctoroff's excoriation of both the Democratic and the Republican parties, and his call specifically for a presidential candidate who is a registered "independent" (or who, at least, would not be running as a traditional party nominee) — i.e., his call for someone like, say, Michael Bloomberg — that both of the two prospects that Doctoroff name-checks, Mitch Daniels and Kent Conrad, are strongly identified with one of the two "major" parties.

A diversion? A cover? A VP shortlist? Any — or all — of these seem possible.

The move of Doctoroff's, however, that may be the
best "candidate" for further investigation is his quiet insertion of this 40-page research paper (pdf) —
"An Assessment of the Viability of an Independent Presidential Candidacy in 2012." The paper is credited to Doctoroff, who links to the paper in both of his two pieces arguing for "an independent presidential candidate" and cites it as the basis for the first of these. Although the paper is undated, it includes late-January polling data,
so it was completed within the last few weeks.

According to the paper's first footnote, "[m]uch of
the research for this paper was conducted by Ashley Jardina, a doctoral graduate student in the University
of Michigan's Department of Political Science" — and, indeed, at least in terms of presentation, this is a
serious piece of research.

Which begs the question: Who commissioned this paper? A "draft Bloomberg" group? Bloomberg's consultant, Douglas Schoen? — who, perhaps not coincidentally, is listed as part of the "Leadership" of Americans Elect. Bloomberg himself?

Certainly, analysis of this length and substance is not typically the sort of thing that a person or group does for their health. More often, there is money involved — or, at the very least, the guarantee of a "high-end" readership.

No, there is nothing accidental about the release of
this paper, which, I surmise, was written specifically
(1) to persuade Michael Bloomberg that now is the time to run for President, and (2) to persuade existing and potential Bloomberg supporters that now is the time to vote for him.

Moreover: Unless Daniel Doctoff's brother, Andrew,
is going a bit rogue, it seems highly unlikely that this paper, which makes an unequivocal case for the viability of an independent presidential candidacy in 2012,
would have been made public — and made public by
the brother of the person, Daniel Doctoroff, who was Bloomberg's longtime deputy mayor and who now is
the President and CEO of Bloomberg LP — without the independent Michael Bloomberg's explicit approval.

To be fair, the paper is very careful not to mention Bloomberg by name. But, if you have any doubt that Bloomberg is the unmistakable subtext, note that the paper's persistent frame of reference — and favorable benchmark — is the experience of another billionaire independent, Ross Perot, in 1992:

[T]he 1992 election teaches one lesson above all: an independent presidential candidate
who spends large sums of money on his
or her campaign has the potential to win significant electoral support....[I]n 1992,
Ross Perot captured 18.9% of the popular
vote. In 2012, if the political climate does
not change significantly in the months ahead, an independent candidate should be able to eclipse the performance of Perot, garnering a significantly higher percentage of the popular vote. Obviously, this assessment also assumes that an independent candidate would be able
to spend on his or her campaign an amount
of money (adjusted for inflation) comparable
to what Perot spent in 1992, i.e., $73 million. But money may be the only hurdle that would prevent an attractive candidate from sprinting unimpeded to a historic finish on Election Day.

Michael Bloomberg is not yet saying yes to a presidential run in 2012 — but, for those who are listening, he might just have started thinking it a lot louder.