I’m a Type “B” person, so I’ll think about this and then reply.
____________
Here is a real life situation: 1.) USA Small businesses are being crushed by Obamanation Communism: Communal Control of Medicine and Insurance (=Obama”care,” and Dodd-Frank (=unending regulations).
2.) After much discussion, our Group decides that the most helpful thing that we can do for USA Small Businesses is to support the idea that Obama should be Impeached in 2013.
3.) After much debate, 3 questions are chosen from an award winning entry by a very old graewoulf as follows:
” - - - Three questions for Benghazi-Coward Obama:
1.) Are you HIDING INFORMATION from the US Congress about the Benghazi Massacre?
2.) Have you been LYING to the US Congress, The Media, or the American Public about the Benghazi Massacre?
3.) Were you, as Commander in Chief, GROSSLY NEGLIGENT about your responsibilities to protect and assist those four Americans who subsequently were murdered in the Benghazi Massacre?
BTW, the large cap words were the same as the 3 charges handed down yesterday to BP for punishment of their Gulf of Mexico underwater blowout, a while back.
Since the US Government is going to hold a company accountable for their poor decisions, then it should hold its CIC accountable his poor decisions, AND use the same legal charges. - - - “
________
Here is my question to you :
“How would this Group put (=mechanics, procedures, division of labor/duties, methods, etc.) those 3 questions to use to achieve the Group’s Goal of Impeaching Obama in 2013, and thus help Small Business in 2014 and beyond?”
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.