Thanks for taking the time to read through, Larks! Some of these questions are better answered via the upcoming Q&A on October 12, so we highly encourage you to intend if you are interested in contributing. Responding briefly to your other questions:
Since this is a new PAC, we are currently soliciting for a small pool of biosecurity champions that at the moment are Democratic. The ActBlue account accepting donations reflects this, but as we grow, we will broaden the ways we solicit for Republican candidates. We can share more on the considerations behind this choice at the Q&A.
Ahh. You said in the post that the group was supporting both parties:
Guarding Against Pandemics (GAP), which does non-partisan political advocacy … another important part of GAP’s work is supporting elected officials from both parties who will advocate for biosecurity and pandemic preparedness. [emphasis added]
… which makes this decision a bit confusing. I think it is very easy to get sucked into partisanship and just going for one side; avoiding this requires consistent effort from the beginning. Do you expect that over the long run you will support roughly equal numbers of Republicans and Democrats? I could imagine it being useful to have some kind of promise to spend equally between the parties. Otherwise I think you’re in danger of just looking like another Democrat front group.
As I said in another comment, I’m working with GAP, but am not speaking on their behalf. And feel free to wait until the presentation before deciding about donating, but yes, there is already effort to push on both sides of the aisle. That said, it’s a waste of time and money for a narrowly focused lobbying group to aim to support equal numbers of people on both sides of the aisle, rather than opportunistically finding champions for individual issues on both sides, and building relationships that allow us to get specific items passed.
That means that when there is a bill which is getting written by the party currently in power in the house, GAP is going to focus on key members of the relevant committees—which is largely, but certainly not exclusively, the party in power. And given US political dynamics, it is likely that GAP will be talking even more to Republicans during the next year, to ensure they have champions for their work during the next Congress.
The Q&A isn’t for three weeks. Until then GAP is giving off the impression of being a front for the DNC, while collecting money from people who aren’t citizens and aren’t eligible to contribute to campaigns, and in amounts that a multicandidate PAC legally can’t distribute to candidates. I’m not trying to accuse GAP of being a scam, but it seems to be doing its best to look like one right now.
Is there any way you can address these concerns sooner than October 12? Perhaps in a follow-up post or long comment here?
Thanks for taking the time to read through, Larks! Some of these questions are better answered via the upcoming Q&A on October 12, so we highly encourage you to intend if you are interested in contributing. Responding briefly to your other questions:
Since this is a new PAC, we are currently soliciting for a small pool of biosecurity champions that at the moment are Democratic. The ActBlue account accepting donations reflects this, but as we grow, we will broaden the ways we solicit for Republican candidates. We can share more on the considerations behind this choice at the Q&A.
Yes, green card holders may donate.
Ahh. You said in the post that the group was supporting both parties:
… which makes this decision a bit confusing. I think it is very easy to get sucked into partisanship and just going for one side; avoiding this requires consistent effort from the beginning. Do you expect that over the long run you will support roughly equal numbers of Republicans and Democrats? I could imagine it being useful to have some kind of promise to spend equally between the parties. Otherwise I think you’re in danger of just looking like another Democrat front group.
As I said in another comment, I’m working with GAP, but am not speaking on their behalf. And feel free to wait until the presentation before deciding about donating, but yes, there is already effort to push on both sides of the aisle. That said, it’s a waste of time and money for a narrowly focused lobbying group to aim to support equal numbers of people on both sides of the aisle, rather than opportunistically finding champions for individual issues on both sides, and building relationships that allow us to get specific items passed.
That means that when there is a bill which is getting written by the party currently in power in the house, GAP is going to focus on key members of the relevant committees—which is largely, but certainly not exclusively, the party in power. And given US political dynamics, it is likely that GAP will be talking even more to Republicans during the next year, to ensure they have champions for their work during the next Congress.
The Q&A isn’t for three weeks. Until then GAP is giving off the impression of being a front for the DNC, while collecting money from people who aren’t citizens and aren’t eligible to contribute to campaigns, and in amounts that a multicandidate PAC legally can’t distribute to candidates. I’m not trying to accuse GAP of being a scam, but it seems to be doing its best to look like one right now.
Is there any way you can address these concerns sooner than October 12? Perhaps in a follow-up post or long comment here?