Ok, here we go.
The idea I'm discussing is not a political action committee - it will not target any specific election or candidate (or politician) for support or opposition. If it supported or opposed in that way it would have to be organized as a PAC and abide by all applicable regulation.
The organization also could not lobby (approach specific members of Congress and urge that they vote yes or no on specific legislation or urge the public or our membership to support or oppose specific legislation), or it would have to operate as a registered lobbying firm, which is entirely different from a think tank.
A think tank undboubtedly can have more effect than lobbying in the long run, since it is not focused on particular legislation but instead becomes a very influential thought leader in society. An example of a think tank is The American Security Council at the following link:
https://www.ascfusa.org/memberships/join_ascf
This is the text from that Join page that tells what they are all about:
"The American Security Council Foundation is an organization whose sole purpose is to educate and inform Americans and our political leadership about the global challenges to the national security, economic security and moral leadership of the United States. To this end, the ASCF sponsors research, holds conferences, and publishes books, monographs and articles. Distinguished scholars, policy makers, lawmakers and citizens participate in these activities. The American Security Council Foundation has had a profound impact on the history of the United States and its global leadership role. In fact, it is difficult to think of an important foreign policy or national security program since World War II where the Foundation did not have a prominent role. We depend on the support of individuals across the nation to achieve these goals.
As a member of the American Security Council Foundation, you will join thousands of like-minded individuals across the United States who share in the common belief that "Peace Through Strength" should be a leading principle in American foreign policy."
Here's their wikipedia article:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/American_Security_Council_Foundation
You can see from their history in that article that they do indeed influence policy and they are an expert resource that is made use of by thought leaders in their field.
They did not help elect Reagan, but his administration used them as an important source for expert advice. The organization, however, only seeks to "educate and inform Americans and our political leadership". Every President and Congressman seeks expert advice in order to understand issues and potential solutions; the experts do all the "figuring" and convey this through the polician's legislative aides. The politician then has their political advisors do some political calculus to figure out what they actually want to adopt as their own position. So the expert advice that's available kind of defines all the possibilities for what can come out of a legislature or Congress. The politician often only knows their talking points, with very little detail; they just select a viewpoint option provided to them by experts. This is my big beef with the way things work: the politician we elect does not come up with their own ideas, the people coming up with the ideas are not elected, and the communication between them is not disclosed to the public. As long as the policies work out well the public has not been harmed, but if the policies that become law actually harms the citizenry (like Obamacare) - the dang thing was actually the brainchild of people who were not even elected and are essentially kept secret from the public.
A think tank as I am describing would be working on a long-term basis that continues on through all politicians as they come and go. It would just keep on, in this case:
a) pointing out other policy-making organizations or specific policies that are contrary to small business and free enterprise (especially if they try to stay out of the public eye)
b) researching and publishing policy papers providing excellent solutions for an improved small business environment
c) holding conferences and otherwise promoting policy that fosters small business
With this sort of mission, specific issues can change over time and vary by region. Healthcare is big now, as is atrocious government spending on bailouts, social programs, bureacracy, excessive regulation, dysfunctional families, socialism, unions, law and order (self defense); there are tons of potential issues that would be prioritized based on what was hurting business most in which region. Inner cities may have crime problems or corruption problems, while suburbs may have property tax problems. Most areas are affected by education problems, which lowers the quality of the workforce thereby decreasing labor efficiency.
Take inner city crime: research papers could be written about self-defense as a way of reducing crime, and creative ways to reduce drug addiction and therefore reduce the number of customers and the demand for drugs. This will lower street prices and make it more competitive, but after a period of perhaps more violence, with the total market permanently smaller, some sellers would drop out of the market. Alternative opportunities for sellers could be explored in the research. As a city "cleans up", legitimate business improves dramatically, resulting in higher per capita incomes. If the right businesses can provide the right jobs at the right times, the rebirth can be improved even more. Business and investing education for inner city youths is also a great idea, and local Churches are key partners in these efforts as well. We would want to build our membership rolls by approaching leaders and citizens in the community (without respect to specific elections or legislation) and would offer student memberships as well. The think tank is laying out position papers, research, ideas, collaboration, etc., to partners in the community.
As you can see, long term the overall picture starts improving dramatically on all fronts, and the political ground starts shifting under the politicians' feet, even though there was no lobbying or PAC activity.
Thanks for your well-thoughtout replies to all of us.
I gleaned this nugget from your replies:
“ - - - A think tank as I am describing would be working on a long-term basis that continues on through all politicians as they come and go. - - - “
IMHO, 1.) the National Election of 2008 was about the 30 % loss of wealth in home values caused by Sub-Prime Federal Laws;
2.) 2012 was about the majority of voters that chose to have their children and grandchildren continue to loveingly burdened with the debt from their own welfare greed;
and 3.) 2016 will be about the 40 % loss of wealth to the US Dollar due to the 2015 collapse of the US Treasury Bond Market.
Thus, the only chance that we have is the 2014 Mid-term National Election.
This is a long way around to ask you what YOU think it is that your group will probably accomplish in < 2 years?
Tick-Tock
This is my big beef with the way things work: the politician we elect does not come up with their own ideas, the people coming up with the ideas are not elected, and the communication between them is not disclosed to the public. As long as the policies work out well the public has not been harmed, but if the policies that become law actually harms the citizenry (like Obamacare) - the dang thing was actually the brainchild of people who were not even elected and are essentially kept secret from the public. While I take no issue with your concept, here, an increasing number of the regulations promulgated by various agencies are actually written by unelected appointees or bureaucrats who garner influence from nameless sources while they, themselves also remain nameless. These are the shadow regulators who increasingly bury not only small business, but the larger businesses upon which small business often depends for revenue stream.
Not all small business caters to the general public, much caters to niche markets meeting the needs of larger corporations.
For instance, I am a company of one. My company hires subcontractors, often similar in size, to do work for larger companies, among which are some of the largest corporate entities on the planet. My company's fiscal health and theirs is interrelated.
Often the regulations which affect the large corporations I do work for are generated by regulatory agencies which are not directly responsible to the electorate, nor the legislature, but exist as part of the executive branch of government, be that at the State or Federal level. Sometimes, those regulations affect me and my subcontractors directly, sometimes only indirectly by affecting the companies I work for, but they all have an effect.
What defense do we as small business owners have against those (often agenda-driven) regulations and the regulators who promulgate those regulations, especially since the probability of influencing regulators (short of injunctive or legislative relief) whose motivations approach religious fervor is nearly nil?