Sobriety as a Test
Does National Intervention do the political work to actually get amendment language ratified, or only use it as a test to verify who is too "under the influence" of corporate power & money in politics?
We do nearly 100% fieldwork, knocking on doors in our congressional districts and organizing non-voters who typically would never trust anyone who would run for office.
We do not do all the hard work so many other organizations do to get a meaningful, fundamental, and sustained change to the Law of the Land. See: How to Get an Amendment Ratified
National Intervention uses the lens of addiction and recovery theory to explain how it is that those in power may fall under the influence of that power. Like other intoxicating substances, they may use it wealth and power as substances, abuse them, and/or become addicted to them. This helps explain their actions and choices while involved in one role or another in the addiction system, which is enforced in the entire "household" of our society. That is to say that, addiction is powerful, recovery is difficult, and many who try relapse, even with appropriate support when sobering-up.
So, while important work must continue in drawing strong legislative boundaries to keep the substance from those who abuse it, National Intervention focuses more on our relationship, as individuals and communities, to those who have done harm while using our wealth and power against us, even when they knew better, but couldn't stop themselves. When we are told they can quit anytime, we simply ask them to prove it by committing themselves, as our representatives, to amendment language that eliminates the influence of corporate power and money in politics.
Moving forward the right language, one without loopholes and exemptions, in time, is crucial. While other organizations work to that legislative end, National Intervention's electoral programming focuses on organizing our chapters by talking directly with that half of the country that appears to have quit voting by sharing the results of the Sobriety Test (NIST). In doing so, an average of 65% of all non-voters will turnout to vote in the next election if they speak with an Interventionist volunteer and learn that there is at least one candidate on their ballot who passes the NIST.
Note: As we scale-out our model to statewide Senate operations, from the successes of our of our presidential and congressional programming, feel free to share this explainer video before we premiere it nationally later this year:
We do use amendment language that affirms that corporations are not people and that campaigns are publicly-financed, or language that is the equivalent in effect to these two premises. In this way, the Official Sobriety Test for addiction to corporate power & money in politics is a test (some say a "litmus test") to identify those who cannot affirm their support for the most basic of pro-democracy affirmations. The two most common circumstances in which a candidate is typically unable to affirm their commitment to this amendment language are:
1. Addictive, Co-dependent and/or Enabling relationship to intoxicating wealth & power and/or the wealthy and the powerful:
Candidate fears losing support from (or access to) powerful financial and corporate interests.
Candidate truly believes it is important to allow money in our campaigns, possibly confusing more nuanced concepts of "freedom of speech/free press" issues with a functioning democracy as a public utility without advantages of influence, free from the corrupting influences of wealth, power, privatization, and profit.
In the either case, Interventionists may choose to commit to informing and educating a candidate about the options and the best way for the candidate to participate in recovery.
Was this helpful?