DOCSLIB.ORG

X RIMYLAN ENTERPRISES, LLC, PROJECT Index No

Total Page：16

File Type：pdf, Size：1020Kb

Download full-text PDF Read full-text
X RIMYLAN ENTERPRISES, LLC, PROJECT Index No SUPREME COURT OF THE STATE OF NEW YORK COUNTY OF NEW YORK -----------------------------------------------------------------X RIMYLAN ENTERPRISES, LLC, PROJECT Index No. APPLECART, LLC, TORMIMA, LLC, and MININO PRODUCTIONS, LLC, COMPLAINT Plaintiffs, -against- NO LABELS, INC., FORWARD NOT BACK, INC., UNITED FOR PROGRESS, INC., UNITED TOGETHER, INC., CITIZENS FOR A STRONG AMERICA, INC., GOVERN OR GO HOME, INC., AMERICANS COMMITTED FOR PROGRESS, INC., CITIZENS FOR AMERICA, INC., PROGRESS TOGETHER, INC., PATRIOTIC AMERICANS PAC, INC., NO LABELS ACTION, INC., PROGRESS TOMORROW, INC., and NANCY JACOBSON, Defendants. -----------------------------------------------------------------X Rimylan Enterprises, LLC (“Rimylan”), Project Applecart, LLC (“PAL”), Tormima, LLC (“Tormima”), and Minino Productions, LLC (“Minino”) by their undersigned counsel, as and for their Complaint against Defendants No Labels, Inc. (“No Labels”), Forward Not Back, Inc. (“Forward Not Back”), United For Progress, Inc. (“United For Progress”), United Together, Inc. (“United Together”), Citizens For A Strong America, Inc. (“Citizens For A Strong America”), Govern or Go Home, Inc. (“Govern or Go Home”), Americans Committed For Progress, Inc. (“Americans Committed For Progress”), Citizens for America, Inc. (“Citizens for America”), Progress Together, Inc. (“Progress Together”), Patriotic Americans PAC, Inc. (“Patriotic Americans”), No Labels Action, Inc. (“No Labels Action”), Progress Tomorrow, Inc. (“Progress Tomorrow”), and Nancy Jacobson (“Jacobson”), allege as follows: 1 PRELIMINARY STATEMENT No Labels owes Rimylan $3,708,214.26. Under a Binding Term Sheet, effective as of December 3, 2016, Rimylan agreed to provide political data and analytic services exclusively to No Labels in connection with the 2018 congressional primary elections. In exchange No Labels agreed to order and pay for $5 million in services from Rimylan during the 2018 election cycle – that is, before November 6, 2018. On June 19, 2018, No Labels unequivocally repudiated the Binding Term Sheet. It did so after causing certain of its affiliates – a group of political action committees (“PACs”) and 501(c)(4) organizations formed to promote No Labels’ favored candidates – to order and pay for just $1,291,785.74 of services. After Rimylan informed No Labels that it intended to sue for breach of contract, No Labels caused the PACs to gratuitously transfer substantially all of their assets – more than $4 million – to other entities that No Labels controls, thereby rendering the PACs judgment proof. By their Complaint, Plaintiffs seek damages in the amount of $3,708,214.26 for breach of the Binding Term Sheet as against No Labels and as against each of the PACs as alter egos of No Labels. Plaintiffs also seek an order nullifying as actually and constructively fraudulent the transfers by which No Labels stripped the PACs of assets with which to satisfy a judgment. In addition, Plaintiffs seek $958,450 as damages in quantum meruit for uncompensated extra- contractual services requested and accepted by Defendants. Plaintiffs further seek, in the alternative, approximately $3.7 million in damages against No Labels’ President, Nancy Jacobson, for fraudulent inducement on the ground that she omitted to tell Rimylan that No Labels did not intend to be bound by the Binding Term Sheet while repeatedly referring to that agreement prior to its execution as constituting a “guaranty” and a “commitment” of No Labels. 2 PARTIES 1. Plaintiffs Rimylan, PAL, Tormima, and Minino are affiliated Delaware limited liability companies doing business under the tradename “Applecart”. Applecart is a technology company that provides political data and analytic services. 2. No Labels is a 501(c)(4) organization incorporated in Washington D.C. It describes itself as a “nonpartisan political organization whose mission is to combat partisan dysfunction in politics.” 3. Forward Not Back, United For Progress, United Together, Citizens For A Strong America, Govern or Go Home, Patriotic Americans, No Labels Action, and Progress Tomorrow are political action committees (“PACs”) affiliated with No Labels. Each is a Delaware corporation. 4. Americans Committed For Progress, Citizens for America, and Progress Together are 501(c)(4) organizations affiliated with No Labels. Each is a Delaware Corporation. 5. Jacobson is a founder and the President of No Labels. JURISDICTION AND VENUE 6. This Court has jurisdiction over Defendants pursuant to Sections 302(a)(1), 302(a)(2), and 302(a)(3) of the CPLR because each of them transacts business within the State of New York or transacted such business throughout the relevant time period, each of them committed tortious acts within the State of New York, and each of them committed acts which caused injury within the State of New York. 7. Venue is proper in New York County pursuant to Sections 503(c) because Plaintiffs’ principal office is located in New York County. 3 FACTUAL BACKGROUND 8. Applecart is a technology company that provides political data and analytic services. It uses publicly available social data and technology to motivate people to vote and to persuade people to vote for less uncompromisingly partisan, more solutions-oriented politicians. 9. In 2013, Applecart was founded by Matthew Kalmans (“Kalmans”) and Sacha Samotin (“Samotin”). Applecart’s founding mission was to develop political data and analytic services designed to help moderate and centrist candidates get elected to state and federal offices. Applecart is Introduced to No Labels 10. In mid-2013, Applecart was introduced to No Labels’ President, Nancy Jacobson (“Jacobson”) by former Utah Governor Jon Huntsman, then one of No Labels’ “Honorary Co- Chairs”. Huntsman had previously employed Samotin on his 2012 campaign for the Republican nomination for President of the United States. The purpose of the introduction was to see if No Labels might be interested in funding a pilot of Applecart’s technology. 11. Jacobson met with Samotin and Kalmans on September 20, 2013. Shortly after the meeting, Kalmans wrote to Jacobson that Applecart was “very excited about the synergy between our goals and those of No Labels and the impact that we can have together”. 12. Jacobson proceeded to introduce Samotin and Kalmans to a number of then- current and prospective financial supporters of No Labels over the following months, including donor Andrew Bursky (“Bursky”), then and now a member of No Labels’ Board of Directors. 13. No Labels entered into a non-disclosure agreement with Applecart on November 7, 2013 for the purpose of performing due diligence on Applecart’s technology. 14. A “deep dive” was conducted by representatives of No Labels, in No Labels’ Washington, DC offices, on November 13, 2013, and over e-mail over the preceding and subsequent week. 4 15. On November 19, 2013, No Labels provided Applecart with a draft, non-binding “terms sheet”, requiring, among other things, that any agreement with Applecart contractually guarantee that “Applecart will not provide it’s services in primary elections without No Labels permission for until 2019”. 16. Applecart and No Labels’ representatives including Jacobson and Bursky exchanged several proposed revisions of the term sheet, including a revision from No Labels on December 1, 2013, which provided that “neither PA [Applecart] nor any of the Founders would provide, or begin negotiations with any third party to provide, the PA Strategy or any related services for any primary election in any even numbered year without the prior written consent of NL [No Labels]…”. 17. No Labels’ December 1, 2013 draft term sheet also insisted that “PA would grant to NL a perpetual, non-exclusive, fully paid, royalty-free, non-assignable (except to a related organization) license to use the PA Strategy (including any updates, improvements, extensions and new technologies) and any PA deliverables in connection with any Campaign, whether or not subject to any Project Supplement. The license would include the rights to (a) sublicense NL’s related organizations, (b) utilize outside vendors, consultants and other third parties, as well as in-house resources, for implementation of the PA Strategy, and (c) reproduce, modify, make derivative works based upon, distribute and otherwise deal with any PA deliverables as reasonably required in connection with the use of the PA Strategy by NL and its related organizations. For purposes of the foregoing, any organization that controls, is controlled by or is under common control with NL would be deemed to be a related organization.” 5 18. On December 5, 2013 Samotin spoke to Jacobson over the phone and let her know that Applecart was not interested in proceeding with a relationship with No Labels due to concerns about the restrictive nature of No Labels’ exclusivity requirements. Applecart Finds Other Sources Of Funding And Is Reintroduced To No Labels 19. In early 2014, Kalmans and Samotin pitched Applecart’s services to a representative of the Republican Governors Association (“RGA”). An affiliate of the RGA funded a study to test the effectiveness of Applecart’s techniques. 20. Later that year, Applecart was hired by an affiliate of the RGA to help with two gubernatorial general election campaigns. Both candidates won their elections by very narrow margins, with unexpectedly high turnout. 21. That same year, Applecart was hired by an organization supporting the senatorial campaign of Dan Sullivan in Alaska. Sullivan also won his election by a narrow margin. 22. Applecart’s
Load more

Recommended publications
  • Session from Hell by Arnold Hamilton These Are the Raw Numbers: the Lawmakers Consider Sacrosanct: Cor- Legislature’S 101 House Members Porate Welfare
    $2.50 25,000 Blue Chip Readers VOL. 42, NO. 2 An Independent Journal of Commentary JANUARY 25, 2010 Wingnuts And Corporatists Session From Hell By Arnold Hamilton These are the raw numbers: The lawmakers consider sacrosanct: cor- Legislature’s 101 House members porate welfare. and 48 senators filed 2,235 bills and The state has created a cornucopia 59 resolutions in advance of the 2010 of tax exemptions – including sales session that opens Feb. 1. taxes on newspapers – that benefit Toss in the 1,051 bills and 86 res- the supposedly free-market Chamber olutions left over from last year and crowd. When GOP Sen. Mike Mazzei lawmakers could take up as many as of Tulsa tried to repeal them and start 3,431 measures this year – or one for over, he discovered neither Republi- just about every little Oklahoma town cans nor Democrats were much inter- the size of Medford or Fairland, Wister ested in disappointing wealthy busi- or Hydro. ness interests and deep-pocketed As impressive – or depressing – as campaign donors. the sheer magnitude of legislative Don’t be surprised if the GOP lead- creativity may be, there’s really only ership targets education, despite lip one number that is important to know service to the contrary. The corporat- heading into this session: 1.3 billion. ists in charge are not beyond using That’s the size of the projected hole the crisis to attempt to bring their – in dollars – in the 2010-11 budget, arch-enemies, the state’s teachers down from a $7.1 billion spending unions, to their knees.
    [Show full text]
  • Policy and Politics by the Numbers;Аfor the President
    5/12/2017 Policy and Politics by the Numbers; For the President, Polls Became a Defining Force in His Administration ­ washingtonpost.com ­ search nation, world… Policy and Politics by the Numbers; For the President, Polls Became a Defining Force in His Administration [FINAL Edition] The Washington Post ­ Washington, D.C. Subjects: Series & special reports; Public opinion surveys; Policy making; Presidency Author: Harris, John F Date: Dec 31, 2000 Start Page: A.01 Section: A SECTION One night a week, a select group of White House aides and Cabinet members would file into the Yellow Oval Room in the White House residence. And Bill Clinton, the most polished and talkative politician of his era, for once would let someone else do the talking: a disheveled man who even friends say was ill at ease except when the conversation turned to numbers. The man was Clinton's pollster. The weekly residence meeting was the place where this president got his fix of the data that drove a presidency. As Clinton prepares to leave office 20 days from now, even his sharpest critics bow to his mastery of politics. This was a president who understood his times and became the dominant voice of them, who faced every conceivable adversity yet managed still to survive and prosper. What is less understood is that Clinton's political gifts were more than the magic of personality. They were a set of precise techniques that relied on constant gauging of public opinion, and constant responses to it in ways large and small. So Clinton's legacy is in many ways a story about polls.
    [Show full text]
  • Hillary Clinton's Campaign Was Undone by a Clash of Personalities
    64 Hillary Clinton’s campaign was undone by a clash of personalities more toxic than anyone imagined. E-mails and memos— published here for the first time—reveal the backstabbing and conflicting strategies that produced an epic meltdown. BY JOSHUA GREEN The Front-Runner’s Fall or all that has been written and said about Hillary Clin- e-mail feuds was handed over. (See for yourself: much of it is ton’s epic collapse in the Democratic primaries, one posted online at www.theatlantic.com/clinton.) Fissue still nags. Everybody knows what happened. But Two things struck me right away. The first was that, outward we still don’t have a clear picture of how it happened, or why. appearances notwithstanding, the campaign prepared a clear The after-battle assessments in the major newspapers and strategy and did considerable planning. It sweated the large newsweeklies generally agreed on the big picture: the cam- themes (Clinton’s late-in-the-game emergence as a blue-collar paign was not prepared for a lengthy fight; it had an insuf- champion had been the idea all along) and the small details ficient delegate operation; it squandered vast sums of money; (campaign staffers in Portland, Oregon, kept tabs on Monica and the candidate herself evinced a paralyzing schizophrenia— Lewinsky, who lived there, to avoid any surprise encounters). one day a shots-’n’-beers brawler, the next a Hallmark Channel The second was the thought: Wow, it was even worse than I’d mom. Through it all, her staff feuded and bickered, while her imagined! The anger and toxic obsessions overwhelmed even husband distracted.
    [Show full text]
  • Transforming Marketing Forward Looking Information & Other Information
    TRANSFORMING MARKETING FORWARD LOOKING INFORMATION & OTHER INFORMATION Cautionary Statement Regarding Forward-Looking Statements This communication may contain certain forward-looking statements (collectively, “forward-looking statements”) within the meaning of Section 27A of the U.S. Securities Act of 1933, as amended and Section 21E of the U.S. Exchange Act and the United States Private Securities Litigation Reform Act of 1995, as amended, and “forward-looking information” under applicable Canadian securities laws. Statements in this document that are not historical facts, including statements about MDC’s or Stagwell’s beliefs and expectations and recent business and economic trends, constitute forward-looking statements. Words such as “estimate,” “project,” “target,” “predict,” “believe,” “expect,” “anticipate,” “potential,” “create,” “intend,” “could,” “should,” “would,” “may,” “foresee,” “plan,” “will,” “guidance,” “look,” “outlook,” “future,” “assume,” “forecast,” “focus,” “continue,” or the negative of such terms or other variations thereof and terms of similar substance used in connection with any discussion of current plans, estimates and projections are subject to change based on a number of factors, including those outlined in this section. Such forward-looking statements may include, but are not limited to, statements related to: future financial performance and the future prospects of the respective businesses and operations of MDC, Stagwell and the combined company; information concerning the proposed business combination
    [Show full text]
  • A Growing Diversity
    A Growing Diversity 1993–2017 In late April 1975, eight-year-old Anh (Joseph) Cao’s long and improbable odyssey to the halls of Congress began as North Vietnamese communists seized the southern capital city of Saigon.1 The trajectory of the soft-spoken, bookish Cao toward Capitol Hill stands out as one of the most remarkable in the modern era, even as it neatly encapsulated post-1965 Asian immigration patterns to the United States. Still, the origins of Cao’s story were commonplace. For three decades, conflict and civil war enveloped his country. After the Vietnamese threw off the yoke of French colonialism following World War II, a doomed peace accord in 1954 removed the French military and partitioned Vietnam. The new government in South Vietnam aligned with Western world powers, while North Vietnam allied with communist states. Amid the Cold War, the U.S. backed successive Saigon regimes against communist insurgents before directly intervening in 1965. A massive ground and air war dragged on inconclusively for nearly a decade. More than 58,000 American troops were killed, and more than three million South and North Vietnamese perished.2 Public opposition in the United States eventually forced an end to the intervention. America’s decision to withdraw from Vietnam shattered Joseph Cao’s family just as it did many thousands of others as communist forces soon swamped the ineffectual government and military in the South. In 2011 Japanese-American veterans received the Congressional Gold Medal for their valor during World War II. The medal included the motto of the 442nd Regimental Combat Team, “Go for Broke.” Nisei Soldiers of World War II Congressional Gold Medal Obverse © 2011 United States Mint 42940_08-APA-CE3.indd 436 2/13/2018 12:04:16 PM 42940_08-APA-CE3.indd 437 2/13/2018 12:04:17 PM Just days before Saigon fell, Cao’s mother, Khang Thi Tran, spirited one of her daughters and two sons, including Anh, to a U.S.
    [Show full text]
  • The Suburbanization of the Democratic Party, 1992–2018
    The Suburbanization of the Democratic Party, 1992–2018 David A. Hopkins Boston College [email protected] Paper presented at the Annual Meetings of the American Political Science Association, Washington, DC, August 29, 2019. 1 Abstract Over the past three decades, the Democratic Party has become mostly suburban in both the residence of party supporters in the mass public and the composition of its congressional caucus. This transformation reflects migration patterns among American citizens, partisan shifts among some suburban voters, and a serious relative decline over time in the party’s rural strength. The trend of suburbanization has made the party’s elected officials more ideologically unified, especially on cultural issues, but it also works to preclude the partywide adoption of an ambitious left-wing economic agenda. Suburbanization has occurred alongside a growth in the racial heterogeneity of the Democratic mass membership and elite leadership alike, encouraged by the demographic diversification of American suburbs. Democratic suburban growth has been especially concentrated in the nation’s largest metropolitan areas, reflecting the combined presence of both relatively liberal whites (across education levels) and substantial minority populations, but suburbs elsewhere remain decidedly, even increasingly, Republican in their collective partisan alignment. Rather than stimulating a broad national pro-Democratic backlash across suburban communities in general, as is sometimes suggested by political observers, the election of Donald Trump has instead further magnified this existing divergence—leaving American suburbia, like the nation itself, closely and deeply divided between the two major parties. Introduction Political analysts, including academics, are fond of describing the current era of American politics as primarily distinguished by deep and stable partisan loyalties.
    [Show full text]
  • I. Maximizing Documentation of the Legislative Process
    I. MAXIMIZING DOCUMENTATION OF THE LEGISLATIVE PROCESS I. A. Committee Records The responsibility to document the activities of Congress and pre- serve records that are of use to Senate and House committees pre- sents a serious challenge in the modern “information age.” Congressional staff, scholars, and archivists all recognize that the fragmentation and dispersal of congressional records inhibit the coordinated records management and archiving of records that are necessary for the present and future study of Congress. Although committees maintain and preserve their official records in greater quantity today than in the past, the quality and completeness of this documentation has yet to be established. Unpublished records cre- ated within the last two or three decades (depending on Senate or House access rules) have not been described systematically by the Center for Legislative Archives staff because they are still closed to research. The mounting volume of records and the demise of cen- tralized filing systems within committee offices, coupled with the increasing use of modern information technologies, have raised the concern that the records may not sufficiently document the legisla- tive process and the history of today’s Congress. This issue concerns committees as users of their own records as well as future researchers. To address these concerns, the Advisory Committee asks the Center for Legislative Archives to undertake a systematic archival description of modern committee records series in order to assess the informational value of the records preserved. The Center should report its findings to the Advisory Committee at the 1996 fall meet- ing in preparation for a full discussion of modern record-keeping practices in Congress and an exploration of the appropriate mea- sures to ensure that the legislative process is fully documented in the official records of Congress.
    [Show full text]
  • Contingent Election of the President and Vice President by Congress: Perspectives and Contemporary Analysis
    Contingent Election of the President and Vice President by Congress: Perspectives and Contemporary Analysis Updated October 6, 2020 Congressional Research Service https://crsreports.congress.gov R40504 Contingent Election of the President and Vice President by Congress Summary The 12th Amendment to the Constitution requires that presidential and vice presidential candidates gain “a majority of the whole number of Electors appointed” in order to win election. With a total of 538 electors representing the 50 states and the District of Columbia, 270 electoral votes is the “magic number,” the arithmetic majority necessary to win the presidency. What would happen if no candidate won a majority of electoral votes? In these circumstances, the 12th Amendment also provides that the House of Representatives would elect the President, and the Senate would elect the Vice President, in a procedure known as “contingent election.” Contingent election has been implemented twice in the nation’s history under the 12th Amendment: first, to elect the President in 1825, and second, the Vice President in 1837. In a contingent election, the House would choose among the three candidates who received the most electoral votes. Each state, regardless of population, casts a single vote for President in a contingent election. Representatives of states with two or more Representatives would therefore need to conduct an internal poll within their state delegation to decide which candidate would receive the state’s single vote. A majority of state votes, 26 or more, is required to elect, and the House must vote “immediately” and “by ballot.” Additional precedents exist from 1825, but they would not be binding on the House in a contemporary election.
    [Show full text]
  • UNCLASSIFIED US Department of State Case No. F-2016-07895 Doc
    Obtained via FOIA by Judicial Watch, Inc. UNCLASSIFIED U.S. Department of State Case No. F-2016-07895 Doc No. C06162980 Date: 09/26/2018 Re: Office of Civil Rights To: Cheryl Mills RELEASE IN PART 86 86 Subject: Re: Office of Civil Rights He could but I doubt he would. UNCLASSIFIED U.S. Department of State Case No. F-2016-07895 Doc No. C06162980 Date: 09/26/2018 Obtained via FOIA by Judicial Watch, Inc. UNCLASSIFIED U.S. Department of State Case No. F-2016-07895 Doc No. C06162981 Date: 09/26/2018 Can I call Harold Koh and Eric Goosby? To: Cheryl Mills ...______ ____, RELEASE IN PART 86 B6 Subject: Can I call Harold Koh and Eric Goosby? I'll be home in ten minutes if you want to talk. UNCLASSIFIED U.S. Department of State Case No. F-2016-07895 Doc No. C06162981 Date: 09/26/2018 Obtained via FOIA by Judicial Watch, Inc. UNCLASSIFIED U.S. Department of State Case No. F-2016-07895 Doc No. C06162982 Date: 09/26/2018 Office of Civil Rights From: Cheryl Mills RELEASE IN PART 86 86 To: Hillary Clinton [email protected] Subject: Office of Civil Rights Before I mention to D as something perhaps worth exploring- do you think this is a role he can fulfill? Office of Civil Rights At the Department of State, diversity is not just aworthy cause: it is abusiness necessity. Diversity of experience and background helps Department employees in the work of diplomacy. The Secretary believes that diversity is extremely important in making the State Department an employer of choice.
    [Show full text]
  • News Release
    NEWS RELEASE FOR IMMEDIATE RELEASE Contact: Tracy Hager 303.764.4090 [email protected] or Stephanie Moore 216.430.2939 [email protected] BakerHostetler Adds Bipartisan Senior Advisors to Expanding Federal Policy Team Former United States Congressman Heath Shuler and government affairs veteran Jim Murphy bolster the firm’s respected Washington team WASHINGTON — Jan. 5, 2017 — BakerHostetler today announced that it has added bipartisan team members, former Congressman Heath Shuler, D-N.C., and government affairs consultant James Murphy, as senior advisors to the growing roster of the firm’s Federal Policy team. Led by former U.S. Congressman Michael Ferguson, who joined the firm in June, Shuler and Murphy join a distinguished team of former government officials and senior advisors in the Washington office. “No matter which party leads Washington, generating bipartisan support for our clients’ initiatives in Congress is critically important,” Ferguson said. “Heath enjoyed a solid record of accomplishment in Congress, working with colleagues on both sides of the aisle, and he adds significant depth to BakerHostetler’s existing bipartisan government affairs capabilities. Jim’s longtime experience, both in Washington and in numerous states, furthers BakerHostetler’s reach and our ability to serve clients’ federal and state government affairs needs.” Shuler Shuler served as a member of Congress for six years, representing North Carolina’s 11th Congressional District from 2007 to 2013, where he was the Democratic Caucus senior whip. He also served as the co-chair and coalition whip to the fiscal conservative caucus the Blue Dog Coalition, co-chaired the Tennessee Valley Authority (TVA) Congressional Caucus, and was founder and co-chair of the House Professional Sports Caucus.
    [Show full text]
  • Legislative Procedure of the United States Congress
    LEGISLATIVE PROCEDURE OF THE UNITED STATES CONGRESS I. OVERVIEW This document explains the legislative procedures of the United States Congress. The information may be useful to NGOs seeking to inform Members of Congress about issues and understand the legislative process. The material is drawn from the House web site1 as well as the observations of a former Legislative Director for the House. √ The best way to become involved in the legislative process is at the committee or subcommitee level, particularly during the markup (amendment process). The committee members with the most influence are the chairmen (majority party) or ranking members (the most senior member of the minority party).2 They are in the best position to move and influence legislation. With respect to the appropriations process, the same is true: each subject area is the responsibility of a appropriations subcommittee chairman, who has vast influence over the process.3 √ It is important to have an appreciation of the political dynamics of each house, including which party is in the majority and which is in the minority.4 The majority can tightly control the agenda of the floor and the committees, particularly in the House. √ It is also helpful to appreciate the importance of issue politics, ethnic voting blocks, and district constituencies in the United States. A member of Congress may be more willing to listen on an issue if approached by a trade association, civic group, or interest group from his district. Many international issues have their best appeal as “local issues,” for example, a member of Congress with a strong Hispanic voting population may be more interested in issues that affect Latin America.
    [Show full text]
  • Informal Legislative Membership Groups in Cross-National Perspective: Congressional Membership Organizations and European Parliament Intergroups Compared
    Informal Legislative Membership Groups in Cross-National Perspective: Congressional Membership Organizations and European Parliament Intergroups Compared John David Rausch, Jr., Ph.D. Teel Bivins Professor of Political Science West Texas A&M University Canyon, Texas, USA [email protected] Mary Scanlon Rausch Head Catalog Librarian West Texas A&M University Canyon, Texas, USA [email protected] Prepared for delivery at the 11th Congress of the Association Française de Science Politique (French Political Science Association) at Institut d’Etudes Politiques in Strasbourg, August 31 – September 2, 2011. Informal Legislative Membership Groups in Cross-National Perspective: Congressional Membership Organizations and European Parliament Intergroups Compared Abstract This paper compares congressional membership groups in the United States Congress with Intergroups in the European Parliament. This research seeks to better understand why members of legislative bodies choose to create regularized informal groups to consider policy options that cannot or will not be considered by formal party groups. In the United States Congress, representatives and senators create membership organizations (CMOs), usually referred to as “caucuses” around issues like race and ethnicity (the Congressional Black Caucus) or industry (the Congressional Steel Caucus) or issue area (the Congressional Pro-Life Caucus). Members of the European Parliament organize Intergroups to consider similar issues. These groups include the European Parliament Intergroup on LGBT Rights, the Health Intergroup, and the Youth Intergroup. CMOs are well-studied by academics and journalists. The methods used to study CMOs may be applied to European Parliament Intergroups to determine if there are common explanations for the creation of these informal groups in two different legislative bodies.
    [Show full text]