The following “Frequently Asked Questions” are excerpted from recent press inquiries: 

Q.  Are you proposing for The Alliance to be a new Congress – replacing our elected representatives and senators? 

A.  No, not at all.  We are proposing that The Alliance will serve as a complementary fourth branch which would give a rotating pool of students and teachers the opportunity to propose and draft legislative bills.  Of course, the students and scholars would be working within a consortium framework, taking input from all key segments of society in drafting consensus legislation.  Our mandate is to work cohesively with the established Legislative and Executive branches in making sure that the legislative efforts are in-sync and unison with all branches of the federal government – which will ultimately reflect the needs of the American electorate.

Q.  I am concerned about the implications of this movement.  Are you trying to replace lobbyists and special interest groups in D.C. with a single organization?

A.  First, we readily accept that lobbyists and special interest groups are a permanent fixture of the Washington and national landscapes, and I would say they do have positive attributes in terms of serving a variety of public/private issues (such as the environment, energy exploration, medical and science Research and Development, etc.).  However, the flip-side of some lobbyists and special interest groups is the occasional negative impact of campaign contributions (either legitimate or otherwise) and the influence it has on strong-arming legislative bills to meet the conflicting agendas of private and public groups.  

In this regard, TANC is not mandated to serve as a full-time lobbying group, except where it comes to compelling students, scholars, the general electorate, and our elected officials to advocate the enactment of the National Alliance Reform Act (NARA) as a proposed 28th Amendment to the U.S. Constitution.  TANC has no outright or subversive objectives to being an “umbrella” lobbyist organization.

Q.  Wouldn't this organization just change the target of lobbyists and special interest groups to the American people, instead of their representatives?

A.  It is readily apparent that lobbyists and special interest groups can target a member of The Alliance or any American citizens, in general.  Here in California, there seems to be a half-dozen or more propositions annually attached to primary and general elections for all voters to weigh-in on.   And, as a regular fixture of these elections is an unceasing parade of TV commercials extolling the pros or cons of what fits their particular special interest group’s own agendas.   However, I like to give credit to the intelligence of California’s electorate to make their own well-informed choices, such as passing Proposition 13, which prevented a significant escalation in property tax assessments.  For more than two decades of propositions, it has brought many more positives than negatives.   The point I’m trying to make here is that voters of California survive the lobbyist onslaught every year and tend to make really informed voting decisions (in the affirmative or negative) on a variety of measure and propositions. 

Now,  to expand that on a broader, macro national basis, when it comes to TANC working on “consensus” federal legislation, it is our firm belief that 36,000 Washington-based lobbyists would find it perhaps a monumental challenge to visit 150- to 250-plus college campuses to try to seriously affect federal legislation in their constituents’ favor.

Q.  With a majority of the American people being uninformed about political ideas and policy, can we expect them not to fall victim to persuasive ads promoting, or rejecting, a bill after it has been added to an election ballot by the process your organization hopes to establish?

A.  Again, I would say the example of the effect of proposition measures in California, and in other states, has not had any overtly negative impact on the electorate. Similarly, I would like to give the American electorate the benefit of the doubt to make informed votes on “national referendum” measures — after all, they just need a chance to try it!  

Under the proposed legislative process behind The Alliance, it would really be students, scholars and key public/private leaders of society to reach “consensus” on the language of proposed federal bills.  By simply having the option to call a “National Electorate Referendum,” it carries the specter of taking the bill directly to American voters — ONLY if either houses of Congress vote-down a bill or the President vetoes it outright.   The intention is that our federal government “ultimately accedes to the will of the people” — not special interests.

Q.  What if those ad campaigns came from within your organization, won't that just mean that the well-funded lobbyist with too much influence will then become The Alliance, and the target of that lobbyist is now the American people?

A.  At the risk of overstatement, The Alliance has no intention, whatsoever, in being an umbrella lobbyist organization.  The scholars, students and other key “thought leaders” of our society will help TANC develop Ethics Bylaws and set other legal safeguards against unsolicited lobbyist contact and any kind of financial or material contributions to members of The Alliance.

In the days and weeks to come, more of the essential language behind the proposed National Alliance Reform Act (NARA), as well as the requisite Bylaws, Code of Ethics and other laws and rules going behind its potential enactment will carry critical safeguards for members of The Alliance.

Q.  Since the American people as a whole know so little about complex political ideas, couldn't they compound problems by voting solely on persuasive advertising, enacting a bill that could truly damage our country?  I am weary about the logistics and possible outcomes of such a proposal.

A.  The American people are already inundated daily with a wide variety of commercial print and electronic advertising, in addition to national and local political advertising during election seasons, and have appeared well-informed enough to weigh through the conflicting messaging on how to vote or who to vote for.

There are enough critical bread-and-butter issues today that affect most middle-income to low-income people — such as healthcare reform, job creation, the long-term solvency of Social Security and general economic issues — that have prompted record voter turnout in such states as Ohio, Texas and other primary states in recent weeks.  These issues hit voters directly in their pocketbooks and hearts, and I would like to think that a consortium made up a broad swath of our nation’s “best-and-brightest” will be able to effectively communicate the positives of a consensus TANC-authored bill — especially if it came up for a vote in an optional National Electorate Referendum.   By far, this is better than legislative bills currently crafted and authored by a smaller group of elected officials engaging in “backroom deals” (many accounting for lobbyist and special-interest agendas) brokered between the Legislative and Executive branches.

In terms of logistics, you are probably right about the decentralized, trans-continental nature of TANC presenting a unique set of challenges.  However, we’re pinning hopes on enough universities — representative of each state’s major urban and regional centers populations — enlisting to serve as local meeting/committee hubs to deliver the kind of critical mass and impetus to make The Alliance a viable force in the national political landscape.

Q.  Is this going to create just another layer of “Big Government,” and is this going to add significantly to the cost of the federal budget?

A.  While this is a proposed legislative body, it is one that is intended to decentralize and localize federal government legislative efforts – to make our democracy more responsive and nimble in addressing pressing domestic socio-economic issues on a local basis.  This is not about creating a bunch of new federal agencies – but is more about making our existing government programs and services more effective and directed at addressing issues that affect Americans directly (i.e., healthcare, jobs, housing costs, etc.).

I would like to think that if our nation’s youth can be of military service (budgeted at hundreds of billions of dollars annually), than wouldn’t it possible for them to similarly answer a call to “civil service” (costing less then say, ten billion a year) to consistently address our nation’s problems?

It’s entirely possible that TANC can be a largely self-sustaining governing body.  By simply restructuring the Federal Student Loan program to instead offer participating students to earn “working endowments” for their legislative services.  The conversion of student loans is a future investment in augmenting the American workforce with a larger pool of students with so-called “real-world” economic, business and social reform experience.

Another beneficial ripple-effect across our society will be a proposed restructuring of federal and private foundation research and development grants going to universities (and, in turn, leading scholars) – that can be tailored to coincide with legislative programs created by The Alliance.  The philosophy behind The Alliance’s creation is all about creating a “self-renewing democracy” above all else.