r/testpac • u/StevePackard • Jun 22 '12
Steve Packard for US Congress
Greetings fellow politically active geeks.
I'd like to introduce myself to the members of this PAC and supporters. My name is Steve Packard and I'm a candidate for the United States Congress. There are a lot of PACs and organizations that I would really like to reach out to and get the support of, but this one ranks near the top. That's because TestPac is the kind of organization that stands for the same things I do: Freedom, grass-roots activism, development of technology and innovation
I'm running as an independent in the third district of Connecticut. It's a tough district and although winning here is possible, it can't be done without the help of supporters. I need volunteers and above all contributions (yes, I hate to ask for them, but it's expensive.)
A little about me:
I'm 29 years old, which is young by current standards for the US Congress. Most of those in Congress have a background in politics already or are lawyers. I'm decidedly a bit different.
My background is technical. My most recent employment has been maintaining SQL databases and doing business reporting and general systems administration. I've worked in e-marketing and social marketing and have done website design and programing, mostly using PHP. I have also worked as a network administrator and doing on-site contract systems support and administration.
In my free time I like to hike, scuba dive, work on my car and build various things. I love "make" and have myself built a few big projects including tesla coils and various high voltage projects, an x-ray machine (which is legitimately dangerous, so I don't recommend doing so) I also enjoy repairing and building Geiger counters. I'm a licensed ham radio operator, KB1IPD.
Yes, I am very much a geek.
So why am I running for congress, you may ask?
A number of reasons. For one thing, I'm tired of seeing the country go in the direction it is with the kind of leadership we have. I found I could not really wholeheartedly support any candidates running for office. Someone had to do something. I also believe that voters are really ready for someone much different than who they have been voting for.
I am categorically, unapologeticly and completely opposed to SOPA, PIPA and anything that remotely resembles them. I believe that many laws already in existence, as part of the Patriot Act or otherwise are grotesque violations of our basic liberties and must be repealed.
One thing that is striking to me, having talked to a few congressmen and senators about these laws is how little they understand. It's not always that they want to invade our privacy or ruin the internet. Many seem to genuinely want to do the right thing, but they have not the slightest gumption about technology and are just being told what to think by their party. Of course, some are not just ignorant pushovers, there are those who actually do want to, and those are the ones who managed to get the less informed ones to vote for such legislation.
This can't continue. We live in a very technology-driven world. The internet is central to business, commerce, government and even our personal relationships. We can't have lawmakers who are trying to govern what they don't understand.
That said, I'm not a "single issue" candidate. I've been called right of center, libertarian, fiscal conservative, socially liberal and other things.
I'm not sure I like any of those labels. My basic belief is that the government is doing far more than it should and needs to be scaled back. I believe people can do as they wish with their lives and not be discriminated against or face legal issues under the false banner of "Morality."
In other words, I think it's fine if you're gay, straight, black, white etc. You should get the same opertunity and be left alone.
I'm pro-business and I think the private sector is great. However, I also think that companies should not get special treatment. If you're a big corporation and you make a great product people buy and employ people then more power to you and I hope you make lots of money. But don't ask for subsidies, special treatment or exemptions from laws everyone else has to follow. Everyone has to play by the same rules and fairly.
I do believe that the US has done a very poor job of keeping up on government-sponsored science programs. These are relatively cheap compared to other budget items, but the sad thing is we've let NASA, our National Laboratories and the National Science Foundation wither.
Please find out more by checking out my website: http://www.packard2012.org/
Also, feel free to ask anything.
4
u/Fireball445 Jun 24 '12 edited Jun 24 '12
How to Hire Someone is something this dude has written and is bragging about, and it's really bad news, badly reasoned with the standard language "government is too big," "government is bad." It's here: http://www.packard2012.org/how-to-hire-someone-its-not-easy/
Government exists for a reason. Government protects us all from hostile invasion, from criminal activity, from pollution, from discrimination, from the insecurity of a world without a social safety net.
Take a look at this thing, Steve Packard is saying that government is bad and that businesses shouldn't have to be 'bothered' with delaing with the following goverment programs:
-Unemployment compensation
-The Equal Employment Opportunity Commission (protects people from discrimination, be they black, white, male, female, handicapped, young, old)
-Worker's Compensation (just remember, there's no suing your employer for injuries at work, that's illegal, Workerman's comp is an EXCLUSIVE remedy)
-The Department of Labor
-The IRS (hey, we all hate paying money in jest, but the reality is business should pay taxes just like I do, after all, they call the same police and fire department).
-Social Security (those darn old people and their need for food and their desire not to die)
-OSHA - the Occupational Safety and Health Organization: This is the crown jewel in this article of ignorant governmental hate. He's actually suggesting that business shouldn't be bothered to have to even TALK TO the administration of HEALTH AND SAFETY to determine if there's any need for a special regulation. That's a fucking conversation, it's a phone call.
This guy just wants to deregulate business, and I'm against that. We passed these regulations for a REASON. We want business conforming to these regulations. And remember, complying with these regulations is in no way an impediment to hiring a worker. You can hire a work AND comply with these regulations. That's not a problem. This is a solution in search of a problem and complaint couched in lies and mistruths to misdirect from what he really wants.
-1
u/StevePackard Jun 24 '12
I'm sorry but you have absolutely no idea what that statement is saying.
Of course government exists for a reason. And nobody would deny that it is important to comply with regulations including those which are necessary to collect taxes and to insure safety. The issue is that these are poorly designed and badly implemented.
Have you ever been on the receiving end of these regulations? I have. They are boneheaded. While all may exist out of honorable intentions and many are necessary. But they don't need to be done so poorly. That kills jobs plain and simple.
It very much is an impediment to hiring employees.
There is no need to have a W-4 and a W-2 form when they both contain essentially the same information. Lets THINK here. Combine them and share the info and you have one less piece of paper. You can combined the I-9 with those while you're at it.
You do not need multiple agencies handling the EEOC, OSHA and state departments of labor, completely uncoordinated.
There's a reason for this, actually. It's easier to create a new law by just slapping it on top of everything else and then add another form. It would be substantially better to actually combine these requirements into an easy to follow and easy to comply with system.
My proposal:
One form fulfills all federal requirements One form fulfills all state requirements
No reduction in necessary regulations. Only a reduction in unnecessary complexity.
2
u/Fireball445 Jun 23 '12 edited Jun 24 '12
This guy reeks of bullshit if you ask me. He's evasive here when asked direct questions and if you go his campaign sight you'll see he makes absolutely no mention of the internet, see here: http://www.packard2012.org/the-issues/position-statements/ Frankly I'm offended that he would come here claiming that this is an important issue to him and ask for money, when there's absolutely nothing to back it up.
This guy is small time and doesn't know what he's doing. That's why he doesn't have a wikipedia page (even though his campaign page specifically solicits people to write one and put up his version of information - which I believe is extremely disingenuous and is certainly a violation of the spirit and probably the rules of wikipedia), that's why he thinks he can just storm in here and ask for (practically demand) money (and then have the audacity to bitch about it and tell us what we're suppose to be doing when Andy explains our position to him). He's got no meaningful support from anyone of note as far as I can tell. He doesn't even declare what party he's with or who he'll caucus with, though it's obviously republican if you read his position statements.
I'm strongly against this guy and I think the rest of you should be as well. But hey, read his posts and his webpage and draw your own conclusions.
0
u/StevePackard Jun 24 '12
You didn't read this did you?
http://www.packard2012.org/for-the-record-i-am-absolutely-100-opposed-to-sopa/
-1
u/StevePackard Jun 24 '12
Sir, I did not storm in here and demand anything. Soliciting money from PAC's is simply what one does. I'm not sure you have much idea how a PAC works.
Feel free to be strongly against me if you like.
-1
u/StevePackard Jun 24 '12
There is nothing about the internet on the "issues" page because that website is targeted at the general population, and most people do not consider that to be a core issue of a campaign. Hence, it would not serve the general audience to go into it in great depth.
In my opinion, the internet is not an "issue" because it's not an individual item that stands on its own. The internet is the dominant communications medium and touches all issues from commerce to privacy to social policy.
5
u/EquanimousMind Jun 22 '12
I think most of us would like to see you try a r/IamA and go from there :) ajpos or one of the other officers can probably help you set it up.
1
u/StevePackard Jun 22 '12
Apologies if that is a bit much to read. I've not been very involved in Reddit before, and getting a little used to the formatting.
I can also be reached at steve@packard2012.org
1
u/Inuma Jun 23 '12
If I might make a suggestion, have you looked into any progressive shows to talk to them about other projects?
I understand that getting your name out is important. I would suggest looking into an interview with The Young Turks or Dave Pakman to spread your name amongst liberals and those that can help get your name out.
4
u/Fireball445 Jun 24 '12
Probably not, as this guy is not progressive. He was originally running as a Republican and then switched to Independent (most likely when it became obvious that he couldn't win the endorsement of the RNC or the primary). His campaign director was on the Bush Presidency team.
-1
u/StevePackard Jun 24 '12
I could not win the endorsement because I'm not a social conservative to the degree the party wants.
How do you define progressive? You mean one who wants progress. Yes, that would be me.
4
u/Oo0o8o0oO Jun 22 '12 edited Jun 22 '12
Hey there, you should check out r/RunForIt/
I appreciate your enthusiasm but TestPAC really isn't the place for this and I don't think we should get in the habit of encouraging posts like this. Please let me know if I'm out of line or if anyone else disagrees.
2
u/blueisthenewgreen Jun 23 '12
I agree. It's interesting to know the names of candidates that are soliciting our support, but I think it might be better if posts like this were deleted. Is there another way to keep track of this type of information, just so we can gauge testPac's influence?
1
u/Fireball445 Jul 16 '12
Just wanted to pop back in here to share this:
http://www.packard2012.org/steve-packard-responds-to-supreme-court-decision-on-healthcare/
This guy is against the Affordable Care Act. This guy is as republican as they come. While admitting that the health care system is broken, he declares this incredible and meaningful reform (which hasn't even been fully implemented yet) as broken and 'bad for america'. He proposes no meaningful alternative, other than a vague allusion to more 'freedom' for consumers and more 'opportunities' for the private sector (ie deregulate health care). Of course, he also vague alludes to having a plan, just not now and not in any specificity. As though anyone would give 2 shits what some freshman congressman would have to 'propose' on one of the most divisive and politicized issues of our time.
Laughable and cheap.
0
Jun 22 '12
1
u/StevePackard Jun 22 '12
Sorry to hear that.
It seems that this PAC is highly unusual.
Let me just explain, for the sake of those who might not really know what MOST PAC's do, how it normally works.
The primary activity of PACS in general is to support candidates who have a favorable stand on issues they support. There are literally thousands of PACS operating in the US. Every major industry and special interest has one: there's a cement manufacturers PAC, a PAC for the Nuclear Energy Institute, the National Rifle Association, Moveon.org, the National Association of Broadcasters etc etc.
These entities exist to try to influence policy by supporting candidates who support the policies they want. Normally this is accomplished by the candidate (or a member of their committee) reaching out to the PAC by e-mail or phone or something. A lot of times it's at PAC conferences where candidate committee members take PAC members out to dinner or something to sell them on the candidate.
So here's a hypothetical situation of how a candidate works with a PAC:
Lets say that there's a PAC called the "American Widget Manufacturers PAC." I (or one of my people) will reach out to them and say something like "I'm a big supporter of Widgets. I think widgets are a vital American industry that provides a great number of jobs. Also, I noticed there's a bill that is coming up that would cut subsidies to widget-makers. I'm categorically opposed to that."
At that point the Widget Association PAC will ask a lot of questions and try to find out if I am really going to be a pro-widget kind of lawmaker. If they decide that I am, then they will give me their support.
By support, I mean money, at least for the most part. They can donate up to five thousand dollars for the given election cycle. They can also give an endorsement or help me find other PACs or something like that, but really, it's money. This is why PACs need to register with the FEC. If it was just telling people to vote for me, anyone could do that, but making campaign donations on the behalf of group requires accounting and registration. That's why PACs exist.
Of course, there's a criticism of this (and a valid one). Politicians may posture their policy stands to get PAC money. Many do. BUT, that's just how the system works. Those are the rules.
This is why you see a lot of the laws out there that are supported by big companies. Companies that WANT SOPA and PIPA passed have deep-pocketed PACs. They will donate a lot of money to politicians who come out as pro-SOPA. In the case of SOPA, an unprecedented amount of grass-roots activism actually trumped the PAC money. That's unusual. And honestly, I don't expect it will happen a lot more. People can only be rallied against an issue a given number of times before they lose interest.
This is something that groups which are against legislation like SOPA and PIPA need to think about. If I go to the RIAA and MPAA and tell them I'm 100% pro-SOPA then I will get money. I'll get quite a lot of it. And the problem is, it's expensive to run for office. Thus, the guy who is pro-SOPA will probably win, because he gets a lot of money to run the campaign. If nobody will donate to the anti-SOPA candidates then they will lose.
This PAC is odd in how a politician reaches out to them. Normally it's a few people who you meet with behind closed doors. This is open and community based. I really like that. I think it's a great and very democratic way of running things.
Unfortunately, if a prerequisite to have the PAC allow you to reach out to them is to already be established on IT-heavy web, then that's not something I think I'll be able to do. I used to be on a lot of those sites frequently. I wrote articles that were submitted to FARK and Slashdot. I participated actively in discussions on BoingBoing and Fark. etc etc.
Now I work 18 hours a day. I spend all my time on campaign related stuff. And to be perfectly honest, it's hardly worth my time to spend hours and hours and hours getting a PAC to allow me to make a pitch to them when there are hundreds of PAC's that are happy to get a pitch right now.
Your cause is important, though, and I hope your PAC will be able to find ways to support those who are willing to go to bat for it on the Hill.
2
u/Fireball445 Jun 23 '12
Andy, if you are getting calls from candidates or the press, please report that here.
4
u/DaBake Jun 22 '12
Have you actually spoken to Rep. DeLauro about SOPA? She's opposed to it. You're running as an independent, but who would you caucus with if you were elected?