We are a group of everyday citizens coming together to take a stand. Alone, one voice may not carry far—but together, we can be a force for meaningful change. According to what we learned in school, 99 is greater than 1. Many of our national and state government officials seem to think it is the other way around. We can choose which political party to belong to or which politicians to vote for, but we generally have little choice as to which economic class we are in. 

Our nation’s founders once felt powerless under the rule of King George III. But they united, and in the Declaration of Independence, they boldly proclaimed:

“Governments are instituted among Men, deriving their just powers from the consent of the governed,—That whenever any Form of Government becomes destructive of these ends, it is the Right of the People to alter or to abolish it, and to institute new Government…”

Thankfully, we don’t need violence to bring about change. We can achieve it by organizing, spreading the word, and working together to revitalize our democracy.

Here’s some of what we’re working toward:

• World wide boycott—Trump has been supported by a number of wealthy individuals and companies. You can help right the wrongs of this administration by boycotting the products and services from the companies associated with Trump's wealthy supporters.

• The wealth bias—The wealthy and corporations have had both huge income growth and lower taxes over the last 45 years while the rest of us have suffered. It is time to change that so that the wealthy pay their fair share of taxes and economic growth is more fairly shared among all citizens.

• Trump removal from office—There are many reasons Trump should be removed from office Here are the top fourteen.

• Empowering citizens to propose and vote on national initiatives—helping to end gridlock in Washington

• Eliminating corruption from our political system

• Establishing a moral, practical immigration policy that treats newcomers, farmers and small business owners fairly

• Responsible use of AI and robotics—yes when helping to bring jobs back home, no to putting everybody out of work

• Reducing the national deficit responsibly

• Achieving true energy independence—the fossil fuel industry should not control our decisions in this area

• Responsible foreign policy—don't treat our friends like enemies, a carefully planned China policy, encourage Israel to behave more peacefully, plan for a post-Putin Russia policy, help Ukraine where we can

• Heed Eisenhower's words on military-industrial complex—make defense decisions less about politics and more about getting the most for our money

• 21st century American Renaissance—true democracy can make this happen!

If this vision resonates with you, we invite you to join us. Go to the Get Involved page to let us know how you’d like to get involved—or simply stay informed as we move forward. If you want to do even more, think about joining our founding board.

Together, we can build a stronger, more responsive democracy.

In 2010, the Supreme Court struck down the longstanding ban on corporate expenditures in federal elections, a move that reversed its position on how corporate money enters the political system and created new avenues for corrupting our government. This decision opened the door for individuals, corporations, interest groups to give unlimited contributions to groups that spend huge amounts of money to influence federal elections. During the 2012 election cycle, super PACs, tax-exempt nonprofit organizations and businesses spent more than $1 billion, including more than $300 million contributed by donors whose identities were never disclosed. 

In 2014, Cambridge University Press released an article showing the results of a study about how different groups influence public policy. As shown in the Policy Adoption Probabilities table, the preferences of average citizens have little effect on public policies while the preferences of economic elites (rich people) have a high level of influence on public policies. The graph shows that the probability of policy adoption is virtually unaffected by the preferences of average citizens.

Our goal is to correct these problems. The policy adoption probability should be the highest for average citizens, not the lowest. The graph should slope upward, not be flat.