WeleadUSA | Explore the Angles

WeleadUSA

We, the people, take responsibility by strategically leveraging the right of open ballot access and the indisputable grant or deny authority of the nomination to stand for elected office into the creation of a specially purposed civic-social network that will fuse learning to powerful citizen action.

Repeal of the Citizens United decision by constitutional amendment, constitutional amendments to affect policy in general, or an Article V constitutional convention.

Efforts to pass a constitutional amendment to overturn this Supreme Court decision, or force a full convention in order to consider other actions like a balanced budget amendment, or repeals of other amendments etc.

Campaign finance, disclosure, or other anti-political money/anti-corruption reforms in general

Various efforts at all levels of government to cap and or replace private political donations with public money in elections, or, perfect laws that will end other corrupting political practices.

Electoral and voting reform

Nonpartisan redistricting
Term limiting elected officials
Nonpartisan primaries
Instant runoff’s
Proportional voting
Top two/blanket primaries
Etc.

A third party or additional political parties

Libertarian
Green
Reform
Etc.

Click the checkboxes above and compare

Outcomes that a GENUINE solution would create.	WeLeadUSA	Repeal of the Citizens United decision by constitutional amendment, constitutional amendments to affect policy in general, or an Article V constitutional convention.	Campaign finance, disclosure, or other anti-political money/anti-corruption reforms in general	Electoral and voting reform	A third party or additional political parties	Why these CONVENTIONAL remedies have not worked previously and won’t work now.
A sustainable - even permanent - solution by enabling a simple, achievable, standardized approach to an eternal vigilance of the people.	A sustainable - even permanent - solution by enabling a simple, achievable, standardized approach to an eternal vigilance of the people. Unlike solutions predicated on complicated and quite unpredictable legal formulas, the WeLeadUSA approach is based on what is well-established in our current system and world: OPEN ballot access exists. This means candidates and candidacies within their now visible constituency can easily build organizations that can help them gain access to that ballot. The power of the nomination is clearly preeminent in our system; and the primary vote belonging ONLY to the people exists; the political parties have little to no power in these matters. The Internet and network technology exists. Voting districts that connect us to our elected officials (and each other) at all levels exist. This demonstrates a republic well able to respond exists. Capable, sophisticated Americans — of all political stripes — who want change exist. This means no laws, reforms, amendments, or permissions are required to enact and sustain whatever change we deem necessary; change we can implement as quickly as we act!	Remedies that are wholly dependent on complex legislation, amendments and ultimately litigation and even if fully and perfectly achieved - impossible - are still subject to being circumvented by power. A comprehensive and enduring solution cannot be achieved with a distant, opaque law that offers no mechanism enabling an engaged eternal vigilance. Constitutional amendments are difficult to get. Regardless of the aim of the amendment it will be dependent on the current system that created, or is exploiting the problem to fix it. Done the typical way, two thirds of the federal Congress must pass the resolution and 75% of the states must then ratify it. Discounting the Bill of Rights it has only happened 17 times in 225 years and two of those amendments passed and then repealed prohibition; make that 15 times. Once passed and part of the Constitution any amendment will still be subject to all of the problems of judicial interpretations, executive enforcement, and political wrangling that is capable of rendering even a good amendment ineffective. Repealing Citizens United still leaves us with all the issues of dark money and shadow parties that existed before the decision and other amendments being proposed can only offer a few scattered results across a sea of woe. A convention hoping to rewrite and perfect is dangerous and unnecessary. Who is going to pick the delegates? Who would trust that/them? No enduring solution can be found here.	Remedies that are wholly dependent on complex legislation, amendments and ultimately litigation and even if fully and perfectly achieved - impossible - are still subject to being circumvented by power. A comprehensive and enduring solution cannot be achieved with a distant, opaque law that offers no mechanism enabling an engaged eternal vigilance. Such remedies would require simple and clear legislation (impossible under current circumstances) that would still no doubt be subject to much litigation while also being dependent on judicial interpretation, the goodwill of executive enforcement, the independence of lawful law enforcement etc.; all things, that to say the very least, are in very short supply. In a nutshell, any such statutory relief would be dependent on the current system that created the problem to fix it and a hope for different outcomes within the same environment, featuring the same people. For instance, despite the existence of the McCain-Feingold campaign-finance legislation, there have been many unfavorable results in this domain including decisions of the Supreme Court in the Citizens United and McCutcheon cases. Lobbying – the real deal - is a first amendment right none of this can affect. This makes it nearly impossible to see anything sustainable coming from these efforts. Such measures also propose that laws and law-making can create and govern good behaviour and is a superior method than a citizen based institution capable of oversight and the exercise of power.	Remedies that are wholly dependent on complex legislation, amendments and ultimately litigation and even if fully and perfectly achieved - impossible - are still subject to being circumvented by power. A comprehensive and enduring solution cannot be achieved with a distant, opaque law that offers no mechanism enabling an engaged eternal vigilance. All typical voting reforms depend on those elected - and their nominators/backers/party - to agree; and allow for the changes to be instituted. However these reforms can be easily overturned and are subject to “unintended” consequences. Measures like terms limits (constitutional amendment required) will not hold up if there is determination to see it overturned; see Michael Bloomberg in NYC. Redistricting may seem like a major problem (it’s not) but if the parties control the nominations and agree on the major issues; power/money/war and peace, it will not matter whether there is a 50-50 chance of electing an official of one or the other party- nothing will change!	Remedies that are wholly dependent on complex legislation, amendments and ultimately litigation and even if fully and perfectly achieved - impossible - are still subject to being circumvented by power. A comprehensive and enduring solution cannot be achieved with a distant, opaque law that offers no mechanism enabling an engaged eternal vigilance. The current execution of the two-party system is designed to discourage a serious challenge by a third-party. Still, third parties DO regularly get on ballots and DON’T win! Why would a third-party make a difference? Would not that party be as interested in money, power, majorities and serving their masters as the current parties are? Is it really a good idea to fragment our legislatures across the country and perhaps - by holding just a couple of seats - make a “coalition” party a major powerbroker; despite them being as distant from their constituents as the current parties are? Besides, the two major parties own very little power and most elections in the country are already non-partisan to one degree or another. Third parties are not explicitly needed, are no more likely to be representative than our existing parties anyway, and offer no path to an enduring solution.	Remedies that are wholly dependent on complex legislation, amendments and, ultimately litigation, even if fully and perfectly achieved - impossible - are still subject to being circumvented. A comprehensive and enduring solution cannot be realized with opaque laws dependent on distant enforcers as opposed to the people executing an engaged eternal vigilance.
A close proximity and genuine partnership between citizens, elected officials, and the government beyond.	A close proximity and genuine partnership between citizens, elected officials, and the government beyond. Unlike all typical approaches to change, the Citizens Access Network creates a natural immediacy between citizens and aspiring or incumbent elected officials. Leveraging the power of open ballot access, the nomination, and the simple organic organization of the republic, the voting district that connects us all; access is enabled and the natural proximity of official and citizen that was a given 200+ years ago is reclaimed. Under the specifically purposed hub of the CAN platform, that proximity creates a profound shift in power and encourages innovative relationships, activities, and interactions; online and off-line. New ballgame!	Produces no genuine power shift capable of penetrating our governing systems to make unfettered access and input by the citizenry simple and effective. The Supreme Court case of Citizens United only deepened the issue; political money has been a problem forever. The constitution, the bill of rights, and any/all amendments could never stop abuse; it could only allow the people to develop the tools necessary to deal with it. By repealing there is the hope of shifting allegiances from the money to the people. But, this allegiance greatly transcends campaign contributions and will always be owed to the nominator. Overturning Citizens United would in no way assure proximity and access by the citizens of any constituency to their elected officials; without which there can be no eternal vigilance. Therefore, this advocacy greatly misses the point besides being unrealistic and derivative.	Produces no genuine power shift capable of penetrating our governing systems to make unfettered access and input by the citizenry simple and effective. As a Citizens United amendment cannot, neither can even fully publicly funded campaigns assure our citizenry proximity and full access to the officialdom of any constituency. Anti-corruption laws are everywhere but to work would require oversight by unentrenched people free to apply the law; this cannot happen in our current system. So, while such laws already exist, new forms of corruption have emerged and will continue to do so. Disclosure rules, while desirable, are very derivative, defensive measures that require a media and electorate who are motivated and have a plan; so they are capable of using the information to accomplish something. Nothing like this exists.	Produces no genuine power shift capable of penetrating our governing systems to make unfettered access and input by the citizenry simple and effective. Such reform can only be based on quantitative notions with the hope for derivative benefits; not qualitative ideals of knowledge, relationships and traceable standards. Many experiments in voting reform have been tried and are still being pursued despite not changing much and in some cases making things worse. Top-two “blanket” primaries for instance still see incumbents re-nominated and elected at the same rates. Nonpartisan or some form of open primaries are everywhere yet can demonstrate no proof of better outcomes. Most of these reforms seek to weaken the major parties but fail to understand what that these parties are already quite weak as ballot access is open to all and nominating power belongs to the people. Voting reforms - or any advocacy - based on quantitative measures cannot do what is really necessary; create proximity and shift power to the people at large.	Produces no genuine power shift capable of penetrating our governing systems to make unfettered access and input by the citizenry simple and effective. A serious third party is no more likely than our existing parties to create proximity and a power shift in favor of their constituents if they are operating in the same theatre, and they would be; making them susceptible to the dynamics of money, media etc. Allegiance and access will always and only be owed to the nominators, and to change that requires NO Third party; only a decision by the people to execute the power they hold.	Produces no genuine power shift capable of penetrating our governing systems to make unfettered access and input by the citizenry simple and effective.
Put the people substantially in charge of creating, implementing and supervising public policy and ensure that allegiances are owed to citizens/constituents and NOT special interests.	Put the people substantially in charge of creating, implementing and supervising public policy and ensure that allegiances are owed to citizens/constituents and NOT special interests. By fusing the power of open ballot access and nominations to the hub of the Citizens Access Network, the powers of the money-media-election complex are rendered inert and allegiances will shift to the new nominator; the WeLeadUSA member-super voter. Simultaneously, this permits a new form of media to emerge — one that tethers knowledge to the power to act on that knowledge. This will allow people to better understand and make public policy across the spectrum by contributing their own – and others - unentrenched expertise as social proof and transparency engenders trust! The people will have both the information and proximity to project power, get things done and ensure there will be no divide between the people and governing bodies they will supervise.	It exists, has been tried, and still has proven unable to shift power or realign allegiances within the system; therefore this approach cannot succeed. Distant constitutional amendments, whatever their aim, can have little effect on the “local” of all electoral politics which must be based on the qualitative relations of officialdom and the citizenry. A repeal of Citizens United offers no path for the active engagement of the modern electorate and any other amendments being contemplated offers only vague “trickle- down” hopes for future “reforms” or better behavior; not direct citizen based action and access.	It exists, has been tried, and still has proven unable to shift power or realign allegiances within the system; therefore this approach cannot succeed. No campaign finance or anti-corruption law contemplates how allegiances can shift to make elected officials dependent on constituents - not special interests. These are also “trickle-down” reforms that disregard all the many machinations of the current system that transcend money; what about all of that? They would also be long in coming and require befuddling, diluting, compromise. Such remedies do not explain how, by passing such laws, the electorate becomes eternally vigilant; the only genuine solution because otherwise, oversight and enforcement will still depend on the same problematic people and institutions.	It exists, has been tried, and still has proven unable to shift power or realign allegiances within the system; therefore this approach cannot succeed. There is no promise in any electoral reform idea – essentially a quantitative technical remedy - that could work quickly to shift allegiances and dependencies within the system and create engagement opportunities that would make the people the relevant policy demanders and supervisors. This approach would only affect one aspect of our mixed system, that of how we vote; not what we know, how we know it, or what we will do with that knowledge. These reforms are incomplete, fragmentary and they can only be implemented by an exhaustive state by state effort.	It exists, has been tried, and still has proven unable to shift power or realign allegiances within the system; therefore this approach cannot succeed. What could a third party offer that our current major two party system could not in terms of power distribution or new forms of engagement that would make their constituents the driving force of policy; not the politicians and benefactors of that party? What? How? They can’t! The only thing they can offer is generalized platforms and the usual promises i.e. trickle-down HOPE!	It exists, has been tried, and still has proven unable to shift power or realign allegiances within the system; therefore this approach cannot succeed.
Transform the “election day” into a persisting “electoral landscape” by creating open and transparent electoral competition at all levels, through all cycles, and at all times. Candidacies motivated by genuine public service can engage constituents directly with no dependence on the approval of parties and media, name recognition, or moneyed interests.	Transform the “election day” into a persisting “electoral landscape” by creating open and transparent electoral competition at all levels, through all cycles, and at all times. Candidacies motivated by genuine public service can engage constituents directly with no dependence on the approval of parties and media, name recognition, or moneyed interests. The fusion of open ballot access and nominating power to the hub of the Citizens Access Network, will leverage the simple design of the republic - our voting districts – and enable any incumbent or aspirant to reach and engage their most highly motivated constituents; completely unshackled from the constraints imposed by the current system. From dogcatcher to the presidency, no imposed, restrictive filtering can prevent direct, reciprocal access between official and citizen and the organizing and communications that makes possible.	Drawn from dubious quantitative-based assumptions, it lacks completely an ability to offer clear, enduring, system-wide remedies. Any promise is based solely on hope, offering vague, derivative benefits at best. No qualitative-based standards to define meaningful electoral competition are even sought. Repealing Citizens United, or the acceptance of any amendment now contemplated, envisions no systemic changes directly to the quality of elections - the lifeblood of any republican/democratic form of government. How such amendments would affect how candidates are chosen, or campaigns conducted, or how the political parties and special interests will be managed are NOT articulated and leave these – the real issues - to distant and derivative hopes.	Drawn from dubious quantitative-based assumptions, it lacks completely an ability to offer clear, enduring, system-wide remedies. Any promise is based solely on hope, offering vague, derivative benefits at best. No qualitative-based standards to define meaningful electoral competition are even sought. The underlying logic of all campaign-finance or anticorruption reform is that public funding or exposure/penalties for bad behavior will somehow change power structures and create electoral outcomes quite different than what we have known. However, the path for how this would happen is always unclear. Without that part accounted for, it’s clear that the benefits promised by these reforms could be derived only through many distant and derivative levels and actions i.e. hope. Further, there is no evidence that where public financing now exists, qualitative competition open to all, AND the active engagement of our most motivated citizens has followed.	Drawn from dubious quantitative-based assumptions, it lacks completely an ability to offer clear, enduring, system-wide remedies. Any promise is based solely on hope, offering vague, derivative benefits at best. No qualitative-based standards to define meaningful electoral competition are even sought. Any electoral reform now contemplated offers no substance or standard as to how campaigns should be qualitatively conducted, makes no provision for how candidates are chosen or considers the proper role – if any - for political parties. These are quantitative-based measures of how votes should be cast, counted, or seats apportioned. Any direct effect on genuine competition and qualitative based-citizen engagement are derived and distant hopes- at best.	Drawn from dubious quantitative-based assumptions, it lacks completely an ability to offer clear, enduring, system-wide remedies. Any promise is based solely on hope, offering vague, derivative benefits at best. No qualitative-based standards to define meaningful electoral competition are even sought. Any third-party would be operating in the same electoral theatre, competing with the same - or other parties – all under the same circumstances. No means by which a third - or - other party - can incite and sustain meaningful, consistent and game changing competition and a qualitative involvement of the electorate can be articulated.	Drawn from dubious quantitative-based assumptions, it lacks completely an ability to offer clear, enduring, system-wide remedies. Any promise is based solely on hope, offering vague, derivative benefits at best. No qualitative-based standards to define meaningful electoral competition are even sought.
Create the means to emerge genuine new-media focused on priorities, traction, and solutions. This as the agitations of phony, hot-button, agenda driven media are sidelined.	Create the means to emerge genuine new-media focused on priorities, traction, and solutions. This as the agitations of phony, hot-button, agenda driven media are sidelined. Driven by open ballot access and the authority to nominate, the most powerful audience ever assembled - US - would gather under the specially purposed roof of the Citizens Access Network to generate, share, and prioritize fully vetted knowledge. From this fusion comes a new form of media, GENUINE new-media; knowledge tied to direct and powerful civic action. Using – and evolving - the best of traditional learning and media systems the capable people will lead the way in creating and implementing solutions to public concerns and needs.	Does not offer the necessary separate path from idle, divisive, paid broadcast mediums or enhance the quality and industry of alternative media. Bad, hot button media - promoting inaction - is the same as bad data; garbage in and out. A hoped-for derivative effect from a repeal of the Citizens United decision would be some reduction in the spending, or emphasis on political advertising. This again is based on quantitative effects - hopes - that take no account of standards or methods that define a rich meaningful and competitive electoral landscape. This, nor any amendment being contemplated, considers a path that would encourage, much less create, a media alternative that would raise the quality of our discourse, fuse that to our electoral processes and citizen action. How half-baked can you get!	Does not offer the necessary separate path from idle, divisive, paid broadcast mediums or enhance the quality and industry of alternative media. Bad, hot button media - promoting inaction - is the same as bad data; garbage in and out. Does not remove the importance of money in our electoral processes and would serve only to replace its source. These measures would have zero effect on changing our very dysfunctional electoral-media methods and nothing changes if that doesn’t. The dark money and clever abuses will find a way so long as it will have value by restricting competition, and thereby genuine discourse; that’s the real game. Even if the most unlikely contenders could qualify for public funding, that money would be spent on silly, fight fire-with-fire advertising and would leave our totally defective media model intact.	Does not offer the necessary separate path from idle, divisive, paid broadcast mediums or enhance the quality and industry of alternative media. Bad, hot button media - promoting inaction - is the same as bad data; garbage in and out. Electoral reforms have not made a dent in incumbency rates and have had no qualitative effect on our electoral or campaign processes. If all such reforms were wildly successful, they would only be capable of kicking old bums out while putting new ones in. Electoral competition cannot be measured in quantitative terms alone; or perhaps at all. Electoral competition must be a medium and only a new approach to media - which requires a new approach to electoral and political processes - can create that.	Does not offer the necessary separate path from idle, divisive, paid broadcast mediums or enhance the quality and industry of alternative media. Bad, hot button media - promoting inaction - is the same as bad data; garbage in and out. Under current or unchanged circumstances, the only thing a serious third-party could offer is more horse-race or spin. An unaffected media domain would still have the power to coerce even a serious third-party (or the people supporting it) into something very much less; or simply encourage an unserious one(s) to join the fray.	Does not offer the necessary separate path from idle, divisive, paid broadcast mediums or enhance the quality and industry of alternative media. Bad, hot button media - promoting inaction - is the same as bad data; garbage in and out.
Do all it promises quickly and efficiently requiring no laws or the permission of any official; or official body.	Do all it promises quickly and efficiently requiring no laws or the permission of any official; or official body. Based on lawful mechanisms and powers that exist, the WeLeadUSA approach will work quickly and efficiently. No need for lawsuits, laws, reforms or permissions of any kind to be asked for or granted; the straightest of lines leads to this profound change. If we work fast it will work fast and with the hour late, and the capable peoples patience and resources stretched, speed and clarity are factors that must be present and accounted for in any real solution.	It will take a very long time, be subject to state by state implementation and/or to lengthy review/regulation. Momentum is lost, possible beneficial effects are watered down, and nothing too much happens. Whether it is the repeal of Citizens United or any other call for constitutional amendments or conventions, a lengthy, complex web of battles and a state by state ratification and implementation process is necessary. These measures will not engage the public or offer a path for quick, clear and enduring progress.	It will take a very long time, be subject to state by state implementation and/or to lengthy review/regulation. Momentum is lost, possible beneficial effects are watered down, and nothing too much happens. Under current circumstances, no simple, effective and fast legal remedy that will have qualitative effects on our electoral and media systems is possible. All campaign-finance reform and anticorruption measures will depend upon the system that creates and compounds the problems to implement and supervise the fix. The lengthy and obfuscated process and problems with laws/law-making intended to control behavior will not work fast, do not work well, and will not engage the public in eternal vigilance.	It will take a very long time, be subject to state by state implementation and/or to lengthy review/regulation. Momentum is lost, possible beneficial effects are watered down, and nothing too much happens. All electoral reform contemplated is based on quantitative/derivative hopes and subject to lengthy state-by-state legal battles, and implementation and supervision by the existing order. None have proven not to work well and certainly not quickly; nor will they engage the public in qualitative eternal vigilance.	It will take a very long time, be subject to state by state implementation or to lengthy review/regulation that likely would water down the effects of any meaningful change. Despite facing somewhat onerous conditions to gain ballot access, third parties certainly exist and have access to voters in the “free market”. Despite these facts, and the independent or third party efforts we have seen historically in presidential elections, the major two parties have taken the vote for generations. No third party would seem to offer a clear path to fast and meaningful change in our electoral and media systems that would incite and sustain eternal vigilance by an engaged public.	It will take a very long time, be subject to state by state implementation and/or to lengthy review/regulation. Momentum is lost, possible beneficial effects are watered down, and nothing too much happens.