What steps would need to be taken to establish a Rutgers PAC?
- Thread starter DJ Spanky
- Start date
Agree with RU4Real.
While it certainly would be important to knock out anti-RU candidates, its just as important to get Rutgers people in, and that likely means encouraging Rutgers grads to start at the bottom - local school board or local mayor or council and some will rise to the top.
I guess its a matter of short vs long term goals.
Not sure what I can do, but obviously I'd love to be involved.
While it certainly would be important to knock out anti-RU candidates, its just as important to get Rutgers people in, and that likely means encouraging Rutgers grads to start at the bottom - local school board or local mayor or council and some will rise to the top.
I guess its a matter of short vs long term goals.
Not sure what I can do, but obviously I'd love to be involved.
I'm an attorney, not in this arena, but I've been around politics all my life. I'll gladly volunteer time and money.
I'm in for monetary aid and whatever vocal support can help. Whether this BoT takeover actually happens or not, this time of PAC would do wonders to help elevate RU in the long run.
Not if you want to be taken seriously.
i don't think people here are looking to form another booster group.
Does anyone know who organized, set-up and paid for the capwiz (Congressional Quarterly) advocacy for 'Friends of Rutgers'?
https://www.capwiz.com/friendsofrutgers/home/
https://www.capwiz.com/friendsofrutgers/home/
Really love the ideas and motivation shown in here! Count me in, would love to finally put my RU Political Science degree to some kind of use LoL.
Anyone interested, email me at HenryRutgers1@gmail.com and we'll get a list going of people interested in working on this. We'll break it into two rough groups for now: 1.) PAC Formation 2.) Electoral Mobilization & Community Outreach. Indicate in your header which one you are primarily interested in for now.
BTW, I'm going from mostly anonymous to quasi-private on this board now.
BTW, I'm going from mostly anonymous to quasi-private on this board now.
I think Rutgers' alumni may finally be growing up, to match our football team. This is great great news.
Once we get to the point where we are sure this is going to happen we should take out another full-page ad in the Star Ledger to announce ourselves, announce what we stand for, take Trenton and corrupt politicians to task, and fire the first shot across the bow.
Some of the principles we should articulate:
Rutgers cannot become a political play-thing of Trenton
Rutgers cannot become a patronage tool
Higher education must be adequately funded by the legislature
Some facts about us:
We are independent of Rutgers' administration in fact and spirit.
We will go after any elected official that we see as attacking Rutgers for political gain
We are 100% non-partisan, existing solely to advance and defend the interests of Rutgers
This post was edited on 6/28 10:23 AM by Eagleton96
Some of the principles we should articulate:
Rutgers cannot become a political play-thing of Trenton
Rutgers cannot become a patronage tool
Higher education must be adequately funded by the legislature
Some facts about us:
We are independent of Rutgers' administration in fact and spirit.
We will go after any elected official that we see as attacking Rutgers for political gain
We are 100% non-partisan, existing solely to advance and defend the interests of Rutgers
This post was edited on 6/28 10:23 AM by Eagleton96
I think even that may be "going too far" (JMHO). The simpler and less prone to any sort of political affiliation the better (ie: a libertarian/conservative may actually be ideologically opposed to government sponsored education and regardless of whether you agree with it, it is a legitimate position).
Again, just my opinion. I am not a political person so TIFWIW. Will support the PAC either way.
Tony, by that measure, I would think that any of the above could be seen as a political position .Some people might legitimately feel that as a state entity, RU should be under state control (despite the 1956 Act - basically that RU should unilaterally give up on the contract).
If you don't think that higher education should be adequately funded, then even if you are an RU alum, you are basically useless to us.
But this does lead to broader questions
What does pro-RU mean. Does it mean pro-RU-NB or all of Rutgers. Does it mean allowing Barchi to go through with his plan, even though it would likely diminish RU-N and RU-C? Or are we really only concerned about people that are blatantly anti-RU (which is generally easier to spot.)
Are we in it just to punish bad actors, or are we trying to push RU supporters (alums obviously, but anyone who has shown strong RU support) into positions where they can help us.
There is going to be alot to discuss at this first meeting.
If you don't think that higher education should be adequately funded, then even if you are an RU alum, you are basically useless to us.
But this does lead to broader questions
What does pro-RU mean. Does it mean pro-RU-NB or all of Rutgers. Does it mean allowing Barchi to go through with his plan, even though it would likely diminish RU-N and RU-C? Or are we really only concerned about people that are blatantly anti-RU (which is generally easier to spot.)
Are we in it just to punish bad actors, or are we trying to push RU supporters (alums obviously, but anyone who has shown strong RU support) into positions where they can help us.
There is going to be alot to discuss at this first meeting.
I think that this PAC would need to refrain from meddling. So we shouldn't take positions on internal RU matters as a matter of course.
I think there could be some wiggle room here though if the Board of the PAC is in full agreement, and an issue seems to have a high degree of agreement among RU alums. But I think the mission and bylaws should work to make this the rare exception.
Regarding NB vs. Newar/Camden though, that is a good point. I don't think we can avoid the issue because it will be immediately reflected in the board make up. If there are Camden/Newark reps on the board (or even built into the bylaws) then defacto the PAC is taking a position on the issue. If the board is all NB people, then the board is defacto taking the opposite position.
So maybe this is a case where taking a position in this issue is not part of the purview of the PAC. But, in my opinion, the Board should be all NB.
I think there could be some wiggle room here though if the Board of the PAC is in full agreement, and an issue seems to have a high degree of agreement among RU alums. But I think the mission and bylaws should work to make this the rare exception.
Regarding NB vs. Newar/Camden though, that is a good point. I don't think we can avoid the issue because it will be immediately reflected in the board make up. If there are Camden/Newark reps on the board (or even built into the bylaws) then defacto the PAC is taking a position on the issue. If the board is all NB people, then the board is defacto taking the opposite position.
So maybe this is a case where taking a position in this issue is not part of the purview of the PAC. But, in my opinion, the Board should be all NB.
Paper circulation of the Ledger is down 70% from the level it was when the Mulcahy ad was put in there, and that was 50% below its peak. An overpaid ad in something no one reads anymore is a significant waste of resources. Better to put that money into targeted online ads to people who read the political parts of nj.com.
My advice (again, am in no way a political or legal person) is that since the Rutgers BoT does have control of Camden/Newark the Rutgers PAC should include these schools in its scope.
Also would note that since Camden and Newark are where the law schools reside, that is the most likely place that political "up and comers" are going to come from. Note that there are currently two RU alumni in the US Senate, and both of them are from Rutgers-Newark school of law (Warren and Menendez).
My only concern is if this forum is trying to run before it crawls. I think all the ideas here are really good and I am excited, however a strategic plan to achieve this as a long term vision needs to be set. You don't want to oversell what you're going do out of the gate like the Save Tim Pernetti.
I am very interested in the part of trying to raise awareness of legislation and legislators that are pro or anti rutgers.
Sending email to the gmail account.
Here is my post from one of the handful of other threads on 6/27:
Can some one give me information on this former friends of rutgers?
My wife and I were discussing this last night.
I am heavily considering buying a domain and starting a facebook group to begin raising awareness of about Rutgers related legislative issues in NJ.
My goal would be to do the following:
* List legislative members who are alumni of rutgers
* List bills that affect rutgers in 3 categories (pro, meddiling, negative) - most bills would be meddling as they help some parts of the university while hurting others.
* Have rating system for assemblymen/senators/governor based on sponsoring of bills and voting history of bills (will model this based on rating systems of washington watchdog groups that do this)
* During election cycles list candidates that are RU alumni
* Use facebook as a place for people to bring issues to light, the first 3 bullets can be fully satisfied by watching/scraping www.njleg.state.nj.us.
My goals stated above are not to start a PAC but more just general awareness for alumni/ru supportive people.
Anyone have any thoughts or interested in getting involved please message me.
About me: I am an RU Alumni and NJ native currently residing in California that works in programming. I am not very politically active today giving maybe at most $50 in my life to any political campaigns. I have become active in my local RU alumni chapter the past year. My wife and I differ in party preference but neither are die-hard never cross over.
I am very interested in the part of trying to raise awareness of legislation and legislators that are pro or anti rutgers.
Sending email to the gmail account.
Here is my post from one of the handful of other threads on 6/27:
Can some one give me information on this former friends of rutgers?
My wife and I were discussing this last night.
I am heavily considering buying a domain and starting a facebook group to begin raising awareness of about Rutgers related legislative issues in NJ.
My goal would be to do the following:
* List legislative members who are alumni of rutgers
* List bills that affect rutgers in 3 categories (pro, meddiling, negative) - most bills would be meddling as they help some parts of the university while hurting others.
* Have rating system for assemblymen/senators/governor based on sponsoring of bills and voting history of bills (will model this based on rating systems of washington watchdog groups that do this)
* During election cycles list candidates that are RU alumni
* Use facebook as a place for people to bring issues to light, the first 3 bullets can be fully satisfied by watching/scraping www.njleg.state.nj.us.
My goals stated above are not to start a PAC but more just general awareness for alumni/ru supportive people.
Anyone have any thoughts or interested in getting involved please message me.
About me: I am an RU Alumni and NJ native currently residing in California that works in programming. I am not very politically active today giving maybe at most $50 in my life to any political campaigns. I have become active in my local RU alumni chapter the past year. My wife and I differ in party preference but neither are die-hard never cross over.
On the question of punishing bad actors vs. supporting good ones: that is a political strategy question. I think both would be on the table. My sense is that you get the most bang for the buck punishing bad actors.
So if you have 1k to give to influence a candidate, that candidate would be more scared of us giving 1k to his opponent than he would be grateful for 1k we give directly to him. Similar, they would be more scared of 5k worth of negative advertising against them than they would be grateful for 5k of positive adverting. But both should be on the table as it would be nice NOT to be ALL negative.
Also, keep in mind, we can accept anonymous donations if we have an legal structure/incorporation (a 527 not a PAC) where we don't give the funds directly to candidates, but use the money to advertise for or against them (by attacking their positions on issues). Many of the big RU players with lots of cash will be reluctant to donate publicly to this effort. But happy to do it anonymously.
We can have a PAC (gives money to candidates) and an associated 527 that raises soft money to do advertising.
I'm not sure how SuperPACs work, but if we can both get anonymous funds, AND give directly to candidates, and spend on advertising, that would be the best of both worlds.
This post was edited on 6/28 11:16 AM by Eagleton96
So if you have 1k to give to influence a candidate, that candidate would be more scared of us giving 1k to his opponent than he would be grateful for 1k we give directly to him. Similar, they would be more scared of 5k worth of negative advertising against them than they would be grateful for 5k of positive adverting. But both should be on the table as it would be nice NOT to be ALL negative.
Also, keep in mind, we can accept anonymous donations if we have an legal structure/incorporation (a 527 not a PAC) where we don't give the funds directly to candidates, but use the money to advertise for or against them (by attacking their positions on issues). Many of the big RU players with lots of cash will be reluctant to donate publicly to this effort. But happy to do it anonymously.
We can have a PAC (gives money to candidates) and an associated 527 that raises soft money to do advertising.
I'm not sure how SuperPACs work, but if we can both get anonymous funds, AND give directly to candidates, and spend on advertising, that would be the best of both worlds.
This post was edited on 6/28 11:16 AM by Eagleton96
Tbe answer to my question just arrived via email:
I would like to personally thank you for taking the time to contact your legislators to urge them to oppose legislation that would eliminate the Rutgers University Board of Trustees.
Thanks to your efforts, and the efforts of other Friends of Rutgers, more than 10,400 letters were emailed to the 120 members of the New Jersey Senate and Assembly. Those letters were sent in less than 24 hours; it is, by any measure, an impressive showing of support for the University.
I'm sure you will be pleased to know that thanks to your efforts, the legislation was neither approved, nor even called for a vote, in either the Senate or Assembly.
The bill could, however, be considered at a later date.
I hope that we can count on your continued support.
Thanks again, and enjoy the Fourth of July holiday.
All the best,
Pete
Peter J. McDonough Jr.
Vice President for Public Affairs
Office of Public Affairs
Rutgers, The State University of New Jersey
I would like to personally thank you for taking the time to contact your legislators to urge them to oppose legislation that would eliminate the Rutgers University Board of Trustees.
Thanks to your efforts, and the efforts of other Friends of Rutgers, more than 10,400 letters were emailed to the 120 members of the New Jersey Senate and Assembly. Those letters were sent in less than 24 hours; it is, by any measure, an impressive showing of support for the University.
I'm sure you will be pleased to know that thanks to your efforts, the legislation was neither approved, nor even called for a vote, in either the Senate or Assembly.
The bill could, however, be considered at a later date.
I hope that we can count on your continued support.
Thanks again, and enjoy the Fourth of July holiday.
All the best,
Pete
Peter J. McDonough Jr.
Vice President for Public Affairs
Office of Public Affairs
Rutgers, The State University of New Jersey
eceres:
Those are all laudable things to do. They actually take more work than the PAC/527. A PAC could do that, or it could be a separate organization. And the separate organization could also be linked to the PAC formally or informally, or not.
I actually think the PAC/527 is the easier lift though organizationally. But I support both.
Those are all laudable things to do. They actually take more work than the PAC/527. A PAC could do that, or it could be a separate organization. And the separate organization could also be linked to the PAC formally or informally, or not.
I actually think the PAC/527 is the easier lift though organizationally. But I support both.
Been reading through this thread (not an alum) and offer a couple of thoughts:
1. Is this just about Sweeney this fall or is this a long term project? If it's just about Sweeney the structure is way more costly and formal than needed. Just donate to his opponent and knock on doors in his district.
2. Be aware of the costs of a permanent organization. You'll likely need annually audited financials and certainly tax filings. A paid staff, at least part time, will likely also be required.
3. How important are anonymous donations vs. the ability to endorse candidates? A 501(c)(4) can accept anonymous donations but is strictly prohibited from endorsing candidates. It COULD, however, weigh in on issues like the BOT without naming pols and political parties. If you want to endorse, you could use a PAC but IIRC donations can not be anonymous.
Just a couple of thoughts
1. Is this just about Sweeney this fall or is this a long term project? If it's just about Sweeney the structure is way more costly and formal than needed. Just donate to his opponent and knock on doors in his district.
2. Be aware of the costs of a permanent organization. You'll likely need annually audited financials and certainly tax filings. A paid staff, at least part time, will likely also be required.
3. How important are anonymous donations vs. the ability to endorse candidates? A 501(c)(4) can accept anonymous donations but is strictly prohibited from endorsing candidates. It COULD, however, weigh in on issues like the BOT without naming pols and political parties. If you want to endorse, you could use a PAC but IIRC donations can not be anonymous.
Just a couple of thoughts
To your questions:
1. I think it's a long term project. Going back a long way RU has suffered from political meddling, and lack of any potency in Trenton.
2. It will need an annual audited statement, and likely a part time book keeper. But might not need any other paid staff. The entity might be mostly passive most of the time, but have the contacts and organizational structure in place to raise and expend funds quickly when needed, and maintain the threat needed to dissuade meddling. But I think we need to see how much money it attracts. More money means more activity and probably a staffer. THAT would be a fun job.
3. Yup, that's the question. I think it's also about giving money to candidates, not just endorsing them. A PAC can give 5k to a candidate. That is actually a lot in an assembly race. Especially if you give the funds to a reasonable challenger. That's the difference between an incumbent having an cakewalk re-election and actually having to work. So that's a big deal.
But if you made me choose between giving money directly to candidates (and non anonymous contributions), and limited to issue advertising with unlimited anonymous cash, I'd choose the latter. Luckily we can have both kinds, just takes more work.
This post was edited on 6/28 11:37 AM by Eagleton96
1. I think it's a long term project. Going back a long way RU has suffered from political meddling, and lack of any potency in Trenton.
2. It will need an annual audited statement, and likely a part time book keeper. But might not need any other paid staff. The entity might be mostly passive most of the time, but have the contacts and organizational structure in place to raise and expend funds quickly when needed, and maintain the threat needed to dissuade meddling. But I think we need to see how much money it attracts. More money means more activity and probably a staffer. THAT would be a fun job.
3. Yup, that's the question. I think it's also about giving money to candidates, not just endorsing them. A PAC can give 5k to a candidate. That is actually a lot in an assembly race. Especially if you give the funds to a reasonable challenger. That's the difference between an incumbent having an cakewalk re-election and actually having to work. So that's a big deal.
But if you made me choose between giving money directly to candidates (and non anonymous contributions), and limited to issue advertising with unlimited anonymous cash, I'd choose the latter. Luckily we can have both kinds, just takes more work.
This post was edited on 6/28 11:37 AM by Eagleton96
We shouldn't suffer for lack of professional services. There are several lawyers in this already and one more who hasn't posted in this thread yet but has voiced his support offline.
As for accountants... my wife (RC85) is a CPA with her own practice and I know there are others.
As for accountants... my wife (RC85) is a CPA with her own practice and I know there are others.
You do not need to provide audited financial statements or full tax filings if you are under a rolling average of $50,000 of revenue (based on a three year cycle). Once you are making more than that, your filing costs will go up, but presumably, you will then be able to afford it.
As ambitious as some of the posts are on this thread and with state elections every 2 years I figured the average would exceed $50,000. Affordability would likely be an issue if revenues turn out to be just over threshold, like $55-75k. Break 100k as a 3 year average (probably 125k, 50k, 125k over the triennial period) and you're off and running.
If we could annualize $100,000, we would own a majority of the 80 member Assembly in 3 elections
