Why do we require corruption of our candidates in order to consider them ‘serious?’
Think about it: What are the two ways that we use to determine whether or not a politician is legitimate?
The first is how much money they've raised.
The second is how many times they've been elected to office or how much experience they have.
But the problem is that raising a ton of money is almost always a sure sign of corruption, and being in office and having a lot of experience is another sure sign of corruption!
So why do we continue to use these measures? They both are expressions of our exact definition of what a bad politician looks like.
I have a simple solution:
We have to stop calling candidates serious only when they've raised enough money or put in enough time with the political elite.
Give some time and attention to individuals who are taking on the pursuit of public office without raising millions of dollars and without having been part of the corrupt political process.
We're here and we need your help!
We’re building a movement of independents who don’t care about raising a ton of money, or staying in office forever, or getting lobbying jobs when we’re done. We’re building a movement of folks who just think our current Congress isn’t representing the vast majority of us, of our fellow Americans.
Support the middle class, not the billionaire class. Join us.