I used to work for GCI. I'm currently a law student, and I'm interested in labor law. I'm not a lawyer, so take this with a large grain of salt. I've spent some time looking for ways these canvassers (or any canvassers) could win their case. I don't know anything about OR labor law (I live out in MA), but federal labor law has an exception for "outside sales" jobs. I've yet to find any case that indicates political canvassing doesn't fall in that exception.

I guess now I'll have to start looking at state law, too. A quick search in OR state cases in Lexis didn't show anything too hopeful for the canvassers.

If, and I'm neither an attorney nor someone with any knowledge about this case, the workers were paid less than OR's minnimum wage, they have a good case. Under OR law, all hourly employees (irregardless of tipped, etc.) must be paid the minnimum wage period and any less than that is a violation.

Speaking as a former GCI employee I would say that the company violates wage laws in at least two ways. First, they borrowed a practice from the PIRGs called the "observation day" in which perspective employees spend 3 hours shadowing an experienced canvasser and 2 hours canvassing independently. They are not compensated for their "observation day". Second, canvassers often spend an hour or two after canvassing filling out paper work. This extra work is not included in GCI's hourly wage calculations. I suspect this is why these former canvassers were paid less than minimum wage.

I understand GCI believes that it is doing important political work. But my opinion is if you have to violate your worker's rights in order to make a profit your running on a bad business model.

I remember back in 04, I had an interview scheduled with Grassroots Campaigns. They rescheduled with me once, then I drove all the way up to Portland (from down in the state of Jefferson)...and they didn't show up....at their own building...for an interview THEY had scheduled. They called back a few days later, really apologetically, and asked if I wanted to re-reschedule. I laughed for a good five minutes, told them to get their shit together and hung up. A few days later, the Republicans came calling, thus deciding my fate for the next few years...

Maybe this shows why canvassing should be done for specific candidates or organizations (like THE BUS) and not as "a business model".

I have gone canvassing for my state rep. and st. sen. candidates this year as well as for a candidate outside my district who I helped recruit, and another who is an old friend. As a volunteer.

I realize how much work it is to round up volunteers to go door to door. But ultimately I think it is more successful than the "business model" idea. Just as the initiativemeisters engendered a backlash with their offices, paid staff, paid petitioners ("go out and get a job in the real world like the rest of us" is a sentiment I have heard from friends), I think activism as a business model deserves to be rethought.

It all comes down to whether campaigning is an art or a science. As my old poli. sci. prof used to say, science means replicating results and that is not true for campaigns--which can never be replicated because there are too many variables.

The most rewarding campaigns I have ever worked on (from school board to President) have featured an inspiring candidate (in more local races someone I already knew or was a friend of a friend in most cases), serious issues, motivated volunteers, and a belief in dialogue with voters. Often those campaigns won, whatever the "professionals" thought would happen.

Some of the least successful/ rewarding campaigns were of the "volunteers are just people to take orders because the professionals know what they are doing" variety. Except often they didn't, and maybe were rude to a famous local person they didn't recognize because they didn't live there, or sent out a mailer some folks took the wrong way, or thought money raising was more important than convincing voters the candidate and the election were important.

I can really imagine Former's story, as I have lived through things like that myself. The interview wasn't for a political job but the supervisor wasn't there when I showed up for an interview they'd scheduled which required me to drive for over 45 minutes; more than once I supported one campaign where the people were really nice over another campaign which may have had better issue views but didn't know how to treat ordinary folks.

I can't believe that my own party would be stupid enough to hire a company that's not unionized and treats its workers like dirt.

Where is the outrage from the party? Where is the leadership by example? Have we sold our soul to the devil of market research, focus groups and pollsters who tell us what we are wantin' to hear, not what we're needin' to hear?

What happened to buildin' an organization? What happened to winnin' elections?

Paid canvassers. Bah! Just a lame excuse for lazy organizin'!

I can't believe that my own party would be stupid enough to hire a company that's not unionized

That is plain silly. The party's own staff isn't unionized is it?

I realize how much work it is to round up volunteers to go door to door.

You are deluding yourself if you think you can round up enough volunteers to do the same amount of canvassing as you can with paid canvassers.

Its perfectly plausible that a national group failed to comply with Oregon's stricter minimum wage requirements. If they weren't paid minimum wage and they couldn't get the company to correct it, they are right to sue. But I have to say, this seems to be part of an organized campaign against GCI.

Pardon my paranoia - but is it possible that the current wave of public GCI bashing is only half disgruntled former staff and half encouragement by folks who don't really have progressive interests in mind. I have no doubt that there are people with genuine complaints or that some of them are perfectly valid. But there seems to be a concerted effort to throw the baby out with the bathwater.

Pardon me for wondering if the baby isn't the real target for some people:

A few days later, the Republicans came calling, thus deciding my fate for the next few years...

Yeah I also interviewed with the folks at GCI and was offered a job. Didn't take it cause they weirded me out. I do know that their canvassers are paid minimum wage and in addition get a cut if they reach certain fundraising goals. GCI may have borrowed a page out restaurant owners/non-unionized strip joints books and counted any fundraising bonuses towards minimum wages. Nice example N

DPO staff belong to a union? Or do you mean DNC staff?

The party's own staff isn't unionized is it?

Which union? When did this happen? Does that turn St. Cent. Comm. into management?

Does that turn St. Cent. Comm. into management?

Yup, just a bunch of bosses hiring non-union labor to do your dirty work ... this would apply to 99% of the social change organizations in Oregon.

The problem for a lot of us who do this work is that we are happy to be getting paid for doing work we believe in. A lot of folks have to work a fulltime job they hate and do social change work in their spare time. Those college students certainly did more to change the world, learned more and had a better experience than they would have flipping burgers at McDonalds.

I am not defending that. I wish it weren't that way. But I recognize that working in social change organizations is not the same as working for the man.

I do know that their canvassers are paid minimum wage and in addition get a cut if they reach certain fundraising goals.

A bonus is not the same as a tip or a tip credit. My guess is that most successful canvassers are paid well over minimum wage when the bonuses are included. Of course some people struggle just to make quota and they still need to pay people who miss quota minimum wage.

I have no idea how they work out the finances now. But for a typical organization, sending out a canvasser who is only raising what they get paid is questionable. The folks at the door have a right to expect some of their money to go the organization, not just into the pocket of the canvasser. The DNC may be running a break even operation since it is primarily interested in the political results.

I don't really see a problem with paying canvassers. People need to pay bills and if they can get paid to do work they believe in - I think that's great. I definitely don't think it's hurting our cause. Employing progressives is noble.

But, there is a problem in the system, it's deep down inside.

First, here is the way canvassers get paid in the PIRG canvass model:

A canvasser gets paid a minimum salary of $300 (ish) a week if they meet the minimum fundraising standard (quota) of the office. (this can get a little confusing as that standard can vary, but let's not worry about that). In addition, anything they make above that weekly quota they take home 30-35%. This is roughly $300-500 a week.

If they don't make the minimum fundraising standard they take home only 30-35% of what they made for the week. This is roughly $50-300 a week.

In order to get paid a living wage, a canvasser needs to move through a neighborhood in order to maximize the donations. In other words - "don't stick with people who won't give you money." This doesn't just mean "don't talk to Republicans," it also means, "don't spend time with people who simply want the information but won't give up the dough."

It's not an education or organizing tool. It's a money making machine. That alone is not damning, unless you think of the millions of people this canvass touches every year and what we could do with that fire power - the missed opportunity is damning. I don't think that's happening.

As for the DNC running a break even canvass - check this out.

As for unions.....

I have to say, this seems to be part of an organized campaign against GCI.

Pardon my paranoia - is it possible that the current wave of public GCI bashing is only half disgruntled former staff and half encouragement by folks who don't really have progressive interests in mind. I have no doubt that there are people with genuine complaints or that some of them are perfectly valid. But there seems to be a concerted effort to throw the baby out with the bathwater.

Would there be something necessarily wrong with an organized campaign against a non-transparent system with a high-piled record of labor abuses and an employment cycle that tears through thousands of young progressive would-be activists?

Ross, I'll let slide that absurd half-and-half breakdown there, rather than take your bait... but I do want to note that there seems to be a concerted effort to plant a straw man at every step in this discussion.

Would there be something necessarily wrong with an organized campaign

Of course not. The question isn't whether there is an organized campaign, there clearly is. The question is whether all of the participants in that campaign have the same goal. I don't doubt some people have sincere criticisms of the way the DNC program was run. But it also appears that some have an agenda of ending what was a very successful program that helped Democrats in the last election cycle.

an employment cycle that tears through thousands of young progressive would-be activists?

I just don't buy that. I have witnessed too many people come out of that cycle who have become leaders in progressive organizations. I don't think there is any evidence that spending a summer canvassing instead of flipping burgers or making lattes or selling clothes destroys young activists desire to change the world. Quite the contrary, they learn a lot about the challenges of political change and some real skills they can use to overcome those challenges.

What other program employs "thousands of young people" doing full time work as progressive activists? People don't get used up by canvasses. They all go on to do something else and take the experience with them. The experience of going door to door, talking to people and trying to persuade them is not a negative one.

In order to get paid a living wage, a canvasser needs to move through a neighborhood in order to maximize the donations.

Yes they do. And yes, that means that they give up other opportunities. This criticism of canvassing is as old as professional canvasses. But the reality is that the canvassers wouldn't be out there at all if they weren't getting paid.

The truth is that the money it would cost to have canvassers just "informing" people is better be spent in other ways. The purpose of the canvass is not to inform people but canvass for resources - that includes money, but also potential recruits and identified supporters. As has been pointed out elsewhere, information is better delivered by a more credible source than a twenty-something stranger. So the resources the canvass collects are better used delivering any information/message in other ways, than paying canvassers to spend more time at doors with people who aren't going to contribute.

That is experience I wish I had before I spent 10 hours a day for 19 straight days knocking on doors for a candidate only to find out that a lot of the people I spent time "informing" were just using up my time. Some, supporters of the opponent, did it deliberately. Some did it because they wanted to talk politics. But the result was that I didn't get the extra 3 votes from each of my precincts that would have turned defeat into victory.

I just don't buy that. I have witnessed too many people come out of that cycle who have become leaders in progressive organizations. I don't think there is any evidence that spending a summer canvassing instead of flipping burgers or making lattes or selling clothes destroys young activists desire to change the world.

We know you don't buy it, Ross, but you also are unwilling to actually argue against it in a fair way. Fisher's book didn't study Fund canvassers for "just a summer," but over the course of two years. That's evidence. And we're not talking about whether canvassing in general is inherently worse than not canvassing. That's your straw man again.

We're offering a developed critique about a specific model with indiosyncratic characteristics. I would really like to hear your thoughtful response, because you have a lot of experience, but when you dodge the issue, question the "agenda" of "some," and dismiss our suggestions as naive without even mentioning what they are...well you sound like a shill! Bring a better game to the table, or start asking the questions yourself.

(Oh, and, yes there are canvassing models that pay hourly. There's no law of economics that says the quota system is How It's Gotta Be.)

The truth is that the money it would cost to have canvassers just "informing" people is better be spent in other ways. The purpose of the canvass is not to inform people but canvass for resources - that includes money, but also potential recruits and identified supporters.

Indeed, the purpose of the PIRG canvass model is to identify supporters and get those supporters to become contributing members of the organization. We then use those members names to lobby state houses and congress (we have x thousand members, listen to us) and then ask them to contribute more. The point I'm making is we need to be doing so much more with those people. Why doesn't PIRG have meet ups across the state? Are members helping to lobby congress? Are the student members and state members getting together to help craft programatic goals? No. They are making calls and sending letters. If we are dedicated to making change this model needs to change. It needs to become more local and more dynmaic. Period.

What I'm talking about here is progress. If we don't start maximizing our member base (ie - using them for something other than their check book or name) we will soon be loosing more elections and more members then we can handle.

Period.

We're offering a developed critique about a specific model with indiosyncratic characteristics.

My point Greg is that you aren't. You are making generic arguments that have been made about professional canvasses in a variety of settings for about 30 years. Or, perhaps I just don't understand the "indiosyncratic characteristics" you are talking about.

As I have pointed out, people have attempted to correct some of the weaknesses in the canvass model and failed. So its not surprising that people who have a successful model are reluctant to start making radical changes. Especially when the critique, while new to the people making it, sounds familiar and has been heard for almost as long as there have been professional canvasses.

(Oh, and, yes there are canvassing models that pay hourly. There's no law of economics that says the quota system is How It's Gotta Be.)

No one said it was a "law of economics" - that is your straw man. But I would be curious to hear about the successes of alternative models and where they are being used.

we're not talking about whether canvassing in general is inherently worse than not canvassing. <?i>

I think you are - at least if we are talking about a professional canvass. And it seems from the descriptions of Fisher's work, that she is certainly questioning professional canvasses in general. I will need to read her book, second hand reports aren't always accurate. But Heather Boothe's critique seemed pretty damning.

But as far as I know, there is no requirement that an employee's "hourly pay" be at least minimum wage unless that person is actually paid an hourly wage.

I believe the minimum wage applies in most circumstances no matter how the pay is determined. Piece work doesn't change that. This is one of the reasons canvasses set minimum quota's. They have to pay people at least the minimum wage no matter how much money they raise.

The unpaid observation day is a standard part of canvasses. I think there is a training exception in most minimum wage laws. That does not mean its legal in Oregon.

you sound like a shill!

I suppose I do to you. But I think that is because I am defending conclusions that you have already rejected. I am not really trying to convince you, I don't think I can do that. I am interested in providing a more balanced perspective for people here who may take your claims at face value.

It may be time to move on to the next door Greg.

The point I'm making is we need to be doing so much more with those people.

I agree. But I will tell you that it is not easy to move people from checkbook activism to activist. The problem is not limited to canvasses, direct mail donors are even worse. The Sierra Club, for instance, holds monthly new member nights and they get very low turnouts from the folks who joined by direct mail or canvassing.

The building of communities with all their relationships is a slow process. It is not something that people working for the summer on the canvass are going to see the results from.

Are the student members and state members getting together to help craft programatic goals? No. They are making calls and sending letters.

Helping "craft programatic goals" is not a more productive use of people's limited time than writing letters or making phone calls. This may be why progressive activists have such a hard time with building communities. The assumption, based on their own preferences, is that people will get more involved if they get to choose the organization's goals. But the truth is most people would much rather choose the organizations they support because they agree with their goals, than spend hours in endless meetings setting them. They want someone else, who has the time and experience, to set the agenda and tell them where they can be most useful in helping move that agenda forward.

If you want to build a community, you need to start with relationships, not by having discussions of issues, programs and strategies. Add a party for new members and the canvassers after a particular piece of turf is finished. You do that for five years running and it will become part of people's calendars.

If you want to build a community, you need to start with relationships, not by having discussions of issues, programs and strategies. Add a party for new members and the canvassers after a particular piece of turf is finished. You do that for five years running and it will become part of people's calendars

I don't think we are far off, Ross. Getting members involved in progammtic decisions might be a couple years off and obviously the first step toward reaching that is building a relationship with your members. But this organization is specifically not taking steps towards this goal. There also seems to be this overall belief that members are the enemy - or at the very least muck up the conversation or make it harder to reach goals. I think that's a loosing attitude.

There are any number of examples, both online and off line (i wish i had links but i'm in a rush) to show that members, volunteers, and yes, staff, have thoughtful and important places in any organizations long term and short term goals.

Now you see them, now you don't

Fisher's book didn't study Fund canvassers for "just a summer," but over the course of two years.

And what was the success rate in those 2 years and how was it measured? Number of new donors? Number of new members? Or number of elections won and legislation passed?

And that is my whole point. An OSPIRG canvasser came to my door--earnest young man, said he was just 18 and just registered to vote. Didn't know the names of his state legislators. But that's OK as long as he recruits new members/ new donors?

If I had money to donate, it would go directly to candidates. When I go door to door, it is for candidates.

I know there are people who try to turn volunteerism into a business model, I am just not sure it works.

I had a friend who was very active in Sierra Club. I applauded that, but we still had discussions/ arguments about specifics of environmental policy.

As I have said elsewhere, I am glad when OLCV endorses a candidate I support, but that doesn't mean my only source of information on candidates is mechanisms like the OLCV scorecard. A search of this website will yield a vigorous debate about one case in particular where someone said "don't support that Democrat who has a low OLCV score" and some others said it was important to know the actual candidates and situations and not just believe in mechanisms like organizational scorecards.

One reason I was registered NAV for 6 years is what I used as a soundbite to people who asked about my registration. "The I in Independent means I think for myself, thank you very much".

There are people who will support the guy they watched grow up, or the home town candidate they have known for years, but not necessarily agree with those people on every issue. THAT is community politics.

But all it takes to win elections is to get more votes than the opponent(s). Seems to me this canvassing model discussion is more about an intellectual exercise than about winning actual elections and passing/ defeating actual legislation.

To use the model of the young OSPIRG person who came to our door---if Democrats control the House because young voters come out and vote for them, that very action will make passing good legislation a lot easier. But if "professional" canvassers even double their donor and supporter base but the Republicans retain control of the Oregon House, that donor base is going to be less effective, no matter what model they were recruited by.

There are any number of examples, both online and off line (i wish i had links but i'm in a rush) to show that members, volunteers, and yes, staff, have thoughtful and important places in any organizations long term and short term goals.

I think we are talking about different things. In most organizations members, volunteers and staff all have roles in setting the organizations goals and developing plans. How those different constituencies interact is different for every organization.

My impression is the OSPIRG tends to be staff driven, but that is hardly unusual. In fact, I think that is the most typical model. But there are also organizations where the members or volunteers provide the primary leadership.

There also seems to be this overall belief that members are the enemy - or at the very least muck up the conversation or make it harder to reach goals.

That is a tension that is often there in staff driven organizations. It can be even worse among staff in member or volunteer driven organizations. Some organizations have even learned to use the tension between the competing points of view creatively to strengthen the organization.

Most of the time it is a tension that has to be managed and lived with. Along with the flip side of volunteers who think the general members should be more active and members who think the staff anc volunteers "work for them" and should just do what they are told. While I don't think any of those attitudes are particularly helpful, I don't think any of them are necessarily fatal either. But they can be when they start to consume the organization's energy in internal disagreements and people lose site of their collective goals.

Sweet, I'm in the news.

Some places hire people as contract workers who are paid a set amount per week/month, etc.

The IRS has become pretty finicy about the definition of contract worker. There is no way a canvasser would qualify.

Some hire people as professional staff (as I was when I worked for a PIRG), exempting them from certain hourly wage laws. I have the feeling this is a big reason why they push so many of them to take on titles like Field Director-- it means they spend a good amount of time on managing and can be classified as exempt.

They need to have real supervisory responsibilities - or at least they used to, the Bushies are trying to unilaterally change labor law and turn foreman and line supervisors into exempt positions. But under the old standard a field manager would not be exempt, the canvass director would be.

so people are going to say they stayed at whatever "X" number of hours was

I don't think any professional canvass allows people to determine their own hours. They go out in crews with a field manager. They get dropped off and picked up. They don't get to stay out until they get quota unless everyone else in the crew does as well. That may happen with bad turf, but I suspect not every often and I haven't heard that claim made here by any of the folks who are campaigning against Grassroots Campaign Inc.

Some places, though, do genuinely break labor laws and should be busted for it.

I think that is right. And if the canvassers were not paid minimum wage they are correct to go after them on it.

Why doesn't PIRG have meet ups across the state? Are members helping to lobby congress?

Yes. The Progressive Voters Network is a member based, grassroots organizing project working to build networks of state PIRG members to impact politics at the national level. OSPIRG and WashPIRG members have had house parties, town hall meetings, attended press events, held happy hour letter writing events, and yes, lobbied congress. A team of volunteers in Washington successfully pushed for Senator Cantwell to support higher gas mileage standards (not that she needed too much pushing).

One of the central tensions of this strategy that PIRG operations universally are supposed to break even or better. The canvass obviously supports itself, fellows apply for grants to cover their salaries, campus operations are funded by incidental fees, etc. Fund raising house parties were one strategy we tried, with mixed success.

Are the student members and state members getting together to help craft programatic goals?

I think I agree with Ross on this. OSPIRG's campaigns are crafted to be exciting to their members, but trying to have members craft strategy and tactics seems like asking an awful lot. There are few enough members willing to get involved in the grassroots activism we're doing -- asking them to create their own campaign plan is unrealistic.

They are making calls and sending letters. If we are dedicated to making change this model needs to change. It needs to become more local and more dynmaic. Period.

Most of the members I talk to are happy with their role in the organization. They want to send in a check once a year, or make an automatic recurring contribution to an organization that fights for their values. They want to send emails to their congressmen when they have a minute to spare. They want OSPIRG to be an organization that can let them do this. There are those who are eager to get more involved, but for every one of them, there are ten members who want to send the check and forget about it. Not having these people as members would be the wasted opportunity, from my point of view. The people who do want to get more involved are almost universally already involved in other efforts as well, from candidate campaigns to democracy for america, to local peace groups, to neighborhood associations. These are the people I'm working with, and none of them have felt a lack of ways to get involved in their communities.

Breadth of activities is something we struggle with. We don't really have the resources at this point to work with hundreds of volunteers doing dozens of different things, so we try to coordinate our efforts nationally. I don't think that indicates a lack of "dynamism" though, just indicates smarts.

There is the occasional heart-warmer, though. Just this morning I met with a volunteer who said "I've never really been involved in 'politics' before [she made scare quotes with her fingers], but when you called and asked if I wanted to volunteer, something just clicked."

That's the stuff.

While canvassers do often times have a set time they come in and leave, that isn't true with all.

Anonymous, I am not sure we are using canvasser in the same way. Because I am not aware of any paid professional fundraising canvass that works the way you decribe.

As for the contractor question. There are a lot of places that don't follow the law on contracting. The IRS has been cracking down on the practice - or were at one time - for that reason. You can find the rules for testins whether someone is a contractor on the IRS site at http://www.irs.gov/businesses/small/article/0,,id=99921,00.html.

I don't know enough about how GCI does business, but seems to me that paid canvassers don't mean those criteria

I don't think canvassers, at least in the standard canvass model with quotas, come close to being contractors. I am not aware of any canvass that has attempted to portray them as contractors.

The suit here seems more to be aimed at situations where people failed to meet quota and were required to work longer hours than they are clocked for minimum wage purposes. If true, the folks complaining are right. They deserve to be paid at least minimum wage for the time they are required to spend on the job. That includes time they are required to hang around waiting for meetings or for someone to get them actually working.

Its the canvass director's job to weed out people in interviews who are clearly not going to be able to do the job. But some directors cop out on their job by hiring everyone who applies and letting it get sorted out by people failing. Those folks still need to be paid minimum wage even if they don't raise a single dollar.

(Sorry for the delayed response, I've been on the road and mostly off the grid.)

I agree that it is frustrating when this discussion keeps getting pushed into the realm of "intellectual discussion." On one hand, this is certainly an issue of principle -- specifically, should "social justice" work be internally defined by the same principles it presumably champions: workers' rights, democratic processes, living wages. On the other hand, we (those who have been publicly agitating about GCI and the Fund) are also dealing with specific issues that keep slipping out of the frame. Ross, it seems like you're still conflating our arguments with the premise of Fisher's book. I think the discussion about canvass outsourcing vs community building is an important one (and it has been very interesting in these threads) and I believe that it's not a black and white issue. But we're talking about the Fund/GCI model specifically, and our critique is both more specific and on a smaller scale (though I do believe it points the way toward a wider movement for reform in the PIRG/Fund world).

You are making generic arguments that have been made about professional canvasses in a variety of settings for about 30 years. Or, perhaps I just don't understand the "indiosyncratic characteristics" you are talking about.

Maybe the latter is true. It might help you to be more specific here when referring to our issues -- you still haven't mentioned what my arguments are, except that they're "generic" and "naive." (Keep in mind that my work on the Fund itself has been limited to reporting upon others' attempts to change the system.) The proposals I have made have been specific to GCI's particular campaigns. In the DNC campaign, those proposals are along the following lines:

•   Canvassers representing the Democratic Party should pass out voter registration forms.
•   Canvassers should receive even modest amounts of political education with regards to the Democratic party platform (they currently receive none).
•   Canvassers should actively recruit volunteers for the Democratic party (currently, they only mention the possibility of volunteer work <i>after</i> donation is already made -- and, in 2004 at least, those who did offer to volunteer were never followed up by the DNC.)
•   The canvass should work in conjunction with state and local parties to some extent; canvassers should be able to point interested people to the appropriate contact points for their state and local Dems. 
•   People raising money for the Democratic party should make minimum wage; canvass directors shouldn't be working 14 hour days, seven days a week. 
•   Addressing issues like administrative malfunction, unsustainable work days, and other workplace standards will have a cumulative effect -- reducing turnover will help reduce the need to recruit, which will reduce the work hours, further reducing turnover and making the entire system more productive/efficient, and so forth.

I find it hard to believe that the "argument" that canvassers should get paid on time and completely reimbursed has been made "in a variety of settings," and that it has proven to be naive. On the other hand, you'd be right to note that some of this is not a matter of the canvass organizations themselves -- everyone in the discussion agreed that DNC canvassers should pass out voter registration forms, and that it was the DNC's responsibility to incorporate that into the campaign. And yet, two years later, GCI's DNC canvassers still hit the streets every day without voter registration forms! Same with the issue of volunteers and coordination with state and local parties. Central to our argument is the conviction clients have a responsibility to run better canvass campaigns.

Ultimately, we are calling for accountability. The MoveOn campaign is important to the discussion of canvassing because it was an instance in which the Fund model and management was placed into the context of an actual field organizing campaign -- the campaign collapsed, was mismanaged into the ground, lost half of its staff in four weeks, and spread enmity throughout the rest. But GCI was rehired by MoveOn. In the following campaign, it proceeded to suffer 90% organizer attrition, and hemorrhaged volunteers as well. Almost all MOFO organizers said the campaign wasn't working; but the Fund/GCI model lacks the capacity to absorb internal feedback from organizers and volunteers; so the campaign continued to fail. I think this is a telling metaphor for the larger Fund/GCI model. (I've mentioned this before in these threads--but Ross, I think you confused a few points, referring to 2004 GOTV canvasses in general, and to extreme turnover in the context of the canvass itself, not the MoveOn field program. "Accountability to who and for what?" you asked. In the proper context of our discussion, the answer is clear: accountability of the campaign organization to the workers and for the people who give their time and money, in order to ensure that their commitment is not soured or wasted; accountability between the subcontractor and client to ensure some non-numerical standards for success.)

As I have pointed out, people have attempted to correct some of the weaknesses in the canvass model and failed.

I'm not sure what you're referring to here -- maybe I missed where you pointed that out? But I have spoken with a number of long-term PIRG/Fund veterans who did advocate change and innovation within the canvass model; their innovations were never seriously considered, however. The failure was internal, in that the senior management was wholly unresponsive to its employees. The people either learned to stop advocating for change, or they left.

In some places, it sounds like you're saying that the PIRG/Fund canvass has, in its long history, developed to the point where its current practices are proven to be the best ones possible. We're arguing that it hasn't changed much at all in that time, and that as a result, the lack of accountability and internal channels for communication and innovation have allowed the system to settle into unproductive and unhealthy practices. While I agree with Fisher's broad claims about the problematic distance between the canvass and the communities it works in, right now we're mostly calling for reform and redress of more specific issues. These are issues that you seem to agree with -- not only do you state that most of your experience with the Fund was not positive, but you also state that these workers should be making the minimum wage, that management shouldn't be centered around setting impossibly high goals, that they should be properly and reliably reimbursed for their expenses, and so on.

You don't believe that PIRG/Fund produces a net negative result; we do. But we don't believe it should be torn down; and you seem to agree that the progressive movement in general has to be better at sustaining itself. So we should be able to reach common ground here -- why the blanket dismissal?

I don't like to lean too heavily on this point, but it's worth making when we are being told that our arguments are naive: the period of time in which the canvass has become one of the dominant modes of activism on the Left has also been the time in which the Left has seen a near-continuous series of setbacks and collapse. Fisher argues that one has to do directly with the other; I believe that it is certainly a factor. Even if you disagree, I don't see how you can assert so confidently that the success of this system is a proven thing.

I find it hard to believe that the "argument" that canvassers should get paid on time and completely reimbursed has been made "in a variety of settings,"

I think you will find an awful lot of experienced political campaign staff who have worked on campaigns where their paychecks were late and reimbursements slow. I agree, there is no excuse for not paying people on time, not paying them minimum wage or not reimbursing their expenses. But I am sceptical this was a part of the "Fund/GCI model" rather than just poor staffing or funding problems.

But GCI was rehired by MoveOn.

Which makes one sceptical of whether your stated evaluation is accurate. Apparently MoveOn didn't agree with you. Is there some reason to think they were not in a position to know?

Your comments about changes to the canvass are both generic and naive. They are the sorts of comments which have been heard for 30 years by people who think the purpose of a canvass is to educate people. For instance, wasting money having 20-somethings lecture people on, or even discuss, the Democratic Party platform is not what a canvass does well. So why would you pay them minimum wage to sit and learn about it?

In some places, it sounds like you're saying that the PIRG/Fund canvass has, in its long history, developed to the point where its current practices are proven to be the best ones possible.

Quite the contrary, I am certain that it can be improved upon. Any operation can be. But I would also be pretty cautious about tinkering with a successful model which has been tested. The Fund runs canvasses all over the country. I would hope that they continue to test ideas locally and only then apply the ones that work nationally.

You don't believe that PIRG/Fund produces a net negative result; we do.

I understand that - we disagree. But regardless of the answer to that question there are a lot more important "evils" in the world than the Fund.

why the blanket dismissal?

Because your ideas aren't new. They have been tried. And they have lead to failure. That does not mean they can never work. But if you really believe they will - start your own canvass. Do it better. Jefferson Smith had an idea and he started the Bus Project.

you state that most of your experience with the Fund was not positive

And what does that have to do with anything? The fact is OSPIRG would not exist if the Fund hadn't rescued it. The fact is that the Fund has produced an enormous amount of social change over the last 30 years. The fact is that there are hundreds of activists working both as staff and volunteers in organizations all over the country who were introduced to political activism and trained by the Fund. How does that stack up against their inability to start a meeting on time?

Your problem is that you want a "good experience" for yourself as much or more than you want social change. There is nothing wrong with that. Go find something that will give you both.

the period of time in which the canvass has become one of the dominant modes of activism on the Left has also been the time in which the Left has seen a near-continuous series of setbacks and collapse.

I'm sorry. But that shows a ridiculous lack of history. First, because canvasses are hardly the dominant mode of activism on the Left and never have been. The dominant force on the left has been union activism. Its just not popular among middle-class college students.

Secondly, it ignores a whole range of factors that have lead to the decline of the left. Not the least of which is that the right is more disciplined, builds institutions and is community based.

The reality is that the left spends more time destroying its own successful institutions than it does building new ones. Its easier, it doesn't cost money and it requires no self-discipline. Its the perfect task for disillusioned 20-somethings who don't want to get on with their lives.

don't see how you can assert so confidently that the success of this system is a proven thing.

The answer to this is experience. In 1980 when MassPIRG staff launched the FUND there were two other successful PIRG's. New York (which already had a canvass) and Minnesota (which later started its own without FUND help). OSPIRG was in the process of falling apart and it was still the next strongest statewide group. The national PIRG organization had disbanded and there was no one with resources to organize new ones.

I don't know how many strong state PIRG's there are but it is now a quite large national movement. It has a solid national organization with a fulltime presence in Washington DC. None of that would exist without the FUND having provided the organizational backbone to build it.

Whether it has been successful is not really a close call.

It has a solid national organization with a fulltime presence in Washington DC. None of that would exist without the FUND having provided the organizational backbone to build it. Whether it has been successful is not really a close call.

It might be a successful national organization, but what is the record of success in passing legislation and getting good people elected? Or is it only about fundraising and being another national lobby group?

LT -

This discussion is about an organization that runs door-to-door canvasses that raise money. So, yeh, its only about money and building institutions. I am sure the effectiveness of the local PIRG's (and other organizations) in using the resources from the canvass varies. My impression is that OSPIRG has been pretty effective in Salem given the political climate. My point was simply that the existance of a national network of PIRG's working at the state level is pretty good evidence of the success of the model. Those organizations would not exist without it.

To me, building permanent institutions seems more important in the long run than "electing candidates" who serve for a few years. Electing the right candidates is just one important tool for achieving change.

Obviously MoveON's purpose is to elect candidates. I assume they hired the GCI folks to provide them with resources and expertise that would help them do that. And it appears that they were satisfied with what they achieved. The folks who are unhappy are using a different set of criteria for judgement, largely around their dissatisfactions as staff.

Its interesting that they are trying to use Fisher, who apparently (I need to read her book) argues that we should use volunteers instead of paying people, to argue that they should have been paid more. This is an argument that has been going on for a long time. Read Cesar Chavez' "On Money and Organizing" - some of his staff complained about their low pay as well.

For as long as I worked at the Fund and GCI, people have gone after it--always with less grounding, more bile, and fewer suggestions than what has been happening here (or, rather, at the other blogs). I always dismissed them just like you are doing here. But these arguments are not coming from lower level staffers who think they know how to run a canvass better, who are upset about their experience; these are issues that are coming from many levels of the organization, and they're now coming out in public because they're not being heard on the inside. They are being dismissed internally even more blankly than you are dismissing it here. So many of us with deep experience have come to agree that it's not acceptable any more to give knee-jerk defenses, to claim that the organization is doing good because it's not doing any harm or vice versa. Most of these people still don't feel like it's appropriate for them to talk about this stuff in public--but at this point they (warily) support others' attempts to do so. That is how Greg has put together so much of these critiques: with the support of people who do know, and who are willing to talk about the situation honestly and with a real dedication to pushing for this organization to be the best it can be.

I appreciate that you are here to engage the discussion, because after months you're the first person who's been willing to openly make a defense. But please read more closely the discussions we've already had; this deserves to be taken more seriously than you have been allowing.

To me, building permanent institutions seems more important in the long run than "electing candidates" who serve for a few years. Electing the right candidates is just one important tool for achieving change.

So, what are the other tools--groups like PIRGs which lobby? What if people agree with them on some issues but not on others? Who would they debate about that?

Ross, are you saying that it isn't a good thing that Earl, Darlene, Peter, Ron have been in politics all these years and are now in Congress (didn't include David Wu because he hasn't been in elective office as long). Earl and Darlene were legislators before they were in Congress.

Ross, don't know about you but I have friends from campaigns going back many years. Some even people I met 3 decades ago. And we did it campaign by campaign, not "building institutions". But then, we live in Salem, not Portland.

Sure legislators come and go, but so do activists. The young ones get married and have kids, the older ones are spending lots of time on career, family, etc. and maybe at some point caring for their parents. But any institution, incl. county parties, is only as good as the people involved. It is good that the BUS is an institution that didn't exist a decade ago, but will it exist a decade from now?

And wouldn't OSPIRG and all other such groups be more successful with a Dem. House and Senate than with Republicans elected?

Almost 20 years ago I heard a speaker (former elected official from another state) at State Central Comm. who said "The purpose of the Democratic Party is to win elections". It stunned me that there were those who disagreed with him and said the purpose was to debate ideas or to have an organization or something.

What we need is serious public debate in this state on all kinds of issues. I think that if Caudle defeats Scott, Brading defeats Minnis, and some of our downstate challengers defeat GOP incumbents we will have more robust intelligent debate than if OSPIRG and all such groups double their success rate but we lose those elections.

<h2>Maybe you and I have a philosophical difference.</h2>