Just Me wrote a wonderful post about the presidential candidates. Here is a post about the senate races that I already published a few days ago on the Flophouse. Re-reading it, I think I set the bar pretty low…
2012 is a major U.S. election year . In addition to the presidential race there are quite a few Senate seats up for grabs in 2012. If Americans abroad decide to vote in large numbers it is quite conceivable that they will have an impact on how some of these races shake out.
Now I would not even think of telling anyone how to vote. All I can do is tell you what is important to me and what I look for in a candidate. To that end I thought it would be an interesting exercise to take a few of these races at random and tell you what I see when I look at their websites, platforms and biographies.
As an American abroad what am I looking for in a candidate? First of all I would like to see some life experience that includes studying, traveling or living/working/serving in the military outside the U.S. If the candidate is already in Congress, I want to know if he/she a member of the Americans Abroad Caucus and how he/she voted on FATCA. For that matter, does he/she ever mention issues of direct interest to Americans abroad (taxation, voting rights, citizenship, strong interest in foreign affairs) on his/her official website(s) or even acknowledge the fact that he/she has constituents outside the U.S.? Is that website “expat friendly”. In other words, is it easy or hard for a constituent overseas to contact him/her via email or to make a contribution to his/her campaign?
I also include for each state an estimated number of expat voters from this site, the U.S. Elections Project and I used the 2010 “Overseas Eligible” numbers. No idea if this reliable but it was the only information I could find. For those who are interested in how some of the incumbents and candidates (those who are already in Congress) stood on H.R. 2847 (111th): Hiring Incentives to Restore Employment Act (father of FATCA) you can find their voting records here.
Hawaii: Estimated number of eligible expat voters: 20,090. Here is their Factsheet for voting from abroad. What is the situation in 2012? Senator Daniel Akaka (Democrat) is retiring. Democrats appear to be divided between two candidates: Ed Case and Mazie K. Hirono. The Republican candidate is Linda Lingle.
Ed Case: Former U.S. representative from Hawaii. A quick look at his agenda shows no particular interest in issues of direct interest to Americans Abroad but he does have some experience traveling outside the U.S. In his biography he says, “Perhaps the trip that influenced me most was a low-budget six-month backpack through Asia…”
Mazie K. Hirono: A naturalized U.S. citizen (she was born in Japan). Three terms in the House of Representatives. Member of the Congressional Asian Pacific American Caucus. Not a member of the Americans Abroad Caucus. Official website is not “expat friendly” and does not make it easy for non-residents of Hawaii to contact her. I could not find anything on her campaign website mentioning issues of direct interest to Americans abroad. Hirono voted for FATCA.
Linda Lingle: Former governor of Hawaii. No experience abroad noted. Her website does indicate that she is interested in Asia-Pacific economic relationships and in tax reform. Like many others her “Donations” page asks for a U.S. city, state and zip code. It is possible to contact her campaign directly through email or snail mail here.
California: Estimated number of eligible expat voters: 486,207. California’s Secretary of State has this very nice, very friendly website for those voting from abroad. The incumbent senator, Diane Feinstein (Democrat), is up for re-election. Her opponent is Elizabeth Emken (Republican).
Dianne Feinstein: Her biography lists no overseas experience but she has a strong interest in foreign affairs. Her website does not reveal any particular attention to civilian Americans abroad. Her “Contact by Email” page requires that an overseas constituent select a U.S. state and give a local zip code. Feinstein voted for FATCA.
Elizabeth Emken: Her biography shows that she studied in the UK at Cambridge University. Looking at the list of issues that is interested in, most of them appear to be local. Her “Donations” page does not allow for a foreign address and the “State” field will only permit her military constituents to indicate that they are out of the country (Armed Forces Europe/Canada/Asia).
Pennsylvania: Estimated number of eligible expat voters: 203,791. For help voting from abroad there is this website for overseas civilian voters. The incumbent for this senate seat is Robert Casey (Democrat) and his opponent is Tom Smith (Republican).
Robert Casey: No overseas experience on his official biography but under his Issues and Priorities he shows a strong interest in foreign affairs and is a frequent traveler abroad: “In July, Senator Casey led a Senate delegation to the Middle East to discuss the ongoing threat posed by Iran and to review developments in the Middle East peace process. Senator Casey traveled to Saudi Arabia, Kuwait, Iraq, Israel, the West Bank, Lebanon and Egypt where he met with top officials. He met with U.S. troops in Iraq and Kuwait. In Iraq he also met with Vice President Biden and General Ray Odierno, Commander of U.S. troops.” The “Contact“ page on his website calls for a state and county but the only overseas voters that are taken into account are military (FPO/APO).
Tom Smith: No experience abroad on his biography and there is no particular attention to the interests of Americans abroad on his Issues page. His “Contributions” page only has a few options for those living outside of the U.S. (American Samoa, Virgin Islands….)
Wisconsin: Estimated number of expat voters: 33,788. The State of Wisconsin has this fine site explaining overseas voting. The incumbent in this senate race, Herbert Kohl (Democrat), is not seeking re-election and the primary is not until August. Tammy Baldwin is the candidate from the Democrat party and I count no fewer than six contenders on the Republican side so I will select two at random: Marc Neumann and Tommy Thompson.
Tammy Baldwin: Her biography reveals no overseas experience and her Issues page is almost 100% devoted to domestic concerns. She says that “fighting for Wisconsin’s middle class is her top priority.” Not clear if she would include the interest of middle-class overseas Wisconsin constituents in her fight. In the State field of her “Donations“ page an overseas voter can select some areas outside the US: AA, AE, AS (I think this is for overseas military voters) but also GU (Guam?) and PR (Puerto Rico). A bit confusing for a civilian voter from, say, Europe. Baldwin is currently serving in the House of Representatives but does not appear to be a member of the Americans Abroad Caucus. Her “Contact” page is not expat-friendly. In fact it clearly states, “Regrettably, I am unable to reply to any email from constituents outside of the district.” Baldwin voted “Yes” on FATCA.
Marc Neumann: No experience overseas on his biography and no particular attention to Americans abroad on his website. He is, however, a supporter of tax reform, “a simpler, fairer, and flatter tax system with fewer loopholes.” Not sure if this can be interpreted as something that would help Americans abroad. His “Donations” page requires a State and it’s not clear if an overseas donor would be able to complete the form with a foreign address.
Tommy Thompson: No overseas experience on his biography and I found no issues of direct interest to civilian Americans abroad anywhere on his website. He is, however, for tax reform and wants to “simplify taxes for individuals.” His “Donations” page requires a State but a voter can select AE, AP and the like if one is (I think) overseas military. Again it is not clear if a civilian voter can complete the form with a foreign address. His “Contact” page does not require an physical address – just a name and email address.
I’ll stop there. All the information above was what I was able to glean from on-line sources. It is entirely possible that the above candidates have a more complete (more nuanced) approach to their overseas constituents that they just didn’t feel compelled to share. If that is the case, I’d be delighted to hear their reasoning for hiding their light under a bushel. As always, feel free to disagree with (or correct) me if you feel that the candidates above are misrepresented. And finally if you are an American abroad who plans to vote in 2012, I would love to hear your take on the federal elections in your home state.
*Casey is a co-sponsor with Sen. Schumer of the “Ex-Patriot” bill, which would retroactively bar all persons who were “covered expatriates” in the past 10 years from ever entering the United States, and would subject covered expatriates to capital gains tax on the sale of US assets, unlike other non-US citizen non-residents.
@ingramoldc
You beat me to it…
If I made a list of people we should seek to unseat, Casey would be on that list. Here is a partial of that fantasy list of people whom we should not only not support, but work toward getting out of office (in no particular order):
Carl Levin
Bob Casey
Charles Schumer
Charles Grassley
Charles Rangel
Max Baucus
John Tierney
Mike Honda
Ben Nelson
Bill Nelson
Barack Obama
John Kerry
Dick Durbin
and I know I am forgetting many… If we voted on priority, Levin would be the highest, but Rangel and Grassley would also compete well.
These analyses only divert attention from the task at hand: persuading local governing authorities (Swiss, Canadian, Australian, etc.) from resisting US’s unlawful intrusion on peoples’ lives. By focusing on the US election you provide US representatives with credibility, help set up inevitable disappointment, and provide US authorities with reinforcement that there are people outside the US who by considering themselves US citizens, are justifiable targets for IRS action. And finally, the bottom line is that almost all expatriates, however defined, will NOT vote.
*I tried doing some quick research on which members of Congress had lived outside the US at any point in their lives. I came up rather to disappointed in having a hard time finding any that did so. On the contrary in Canada just offhand I know of the following politicians and public figures that had lived and worked outside of Canada during different parts of their lives and careers.
Conservative MP John Weston(lawyer in Taiwan)
Conservative MP Andrew Saxton(Banker in Switzerland and Singapore)
Alberta Premier Allison Redford(worked in newly post apartheid South Africa)
NDP “behind the scenes man” Robin Sears(Germany, Japan, and Hong Kong)
Former Liberal Leader Michael Ignatieff(taught in United Kingdom and United States)
Bank of Canada Governor Mark Carney(worked in United Kingdom and United States)
Laureen Harper(lived in New Zealand for a period of time)
Conservative MP Rona Ambrose(grew up in Brazil)
Could anyone cite me a similar list of US members of Congress
*To Joe’s point focusing on the US Congressional races is only appropriate to the degree you can find individual members of Congress that in the past were probably in technical violation of the law living overseas or are closely tied to others that were. For example I have kept a close eye on Ohio Congresswoman Marcy Kaptur for her ties to renounced US citizen Kristina Keneally.
Ignatieff is an interesting case, since he ran for Prime Minister. Is he a dual citizen? I wonder if he could become an advocate of our cause, or whether it would help (since he lost the election).
*Ignatieff is not a dual citizen. As you probably know John Weston is already very involved on this.
My main point was in general Canadian politicians have far more experience living outside of Canada than American ones and not just in the usual countries such as the US and UK
@JustMe, thank you once again. What a lot of work, and so well organized! A great resource for those who are able and willing to register and vote, or to influence our US resident friends and family to help us.
And for those who aren’t able or willing, it is still a significant list for readers (and lurkers) here, whoever they may be.
@Joe, I see your point, that there are some who should not vote, if it *jeopardizes their ability to successfully renounce or relinquish, and if it provides the US (IRS) with leverage against them.
*(@all; Would someone here elaborate on that scenario as a caution/warning to those who shouldn’t even consider voting? )
But, absent *compelling reasons to abstain, there are a range of participants and readers here, with different situations, facts, compliance, timelines, and angles on how they personally will choose to proceed. Depending on their facts, some may still choose to vote:
– Those living in countries with relatively small proportions of US ‘persons’ abroad, may think that they can’t get much traction with the politicians in their country of permanent residence or other citizenship, because of small numbers. Or, if their home country has already signed on to FATCA, they may decide that it is worth trying to work on the US front as well.
– There may be some who need to return to the US, or who live there now – and can’t leave because of family – so have no reason to refrain from voting.
– There may be some readers or participants here, who are US resident citizen family and friends who want to show support for their fellow US citizens born or living ‘abroad’ – they’ll know firsthand that it is absolutely ridiculous to claim that duals, or foreign aid-workers, or students, or any others who permanently live, or routinely travel outside the US are ‘hiding’ illegal money just because they have a local ‘foreign’ bank account where they live and work. Those who travel regularly or have family ties outside the US have completely ordinary needs to bank abroad, rather than incur expensive currency exchange and service fees – those accounts usually offer absolutely no interest – so there could not possibly be any US tax lost.
– Immigrants, to the US, who’ve naturalized, but are now criminalized by the US because they had or have pre-existing accounts and assets in their country of origin, ex. inherited them from family – could consider strategic voting in protest against the US lack of any assistance or prior warning that would have prevented them from falling inadvertently into the complex and incomprehensible quicksand of FBARs and FATCA. Countries tend to choose to accept immigrants with means and education – who would logically have accumulated assets before they were accepted by the US, thus, the continuing failure to warn and assist this group, can only be interpreted as a deliberate means of generating revenues through penalties. Countries do not tend to favour admitting people without means – so unless this is publicized, the US will continue to aggressively and egregiously milk this group via FBAR and FATCA. The US and the IRS have amply demonstrated that they will not act preventively, ethically and responsibly in order to assist people in complying. As documented, all efforts are on after the fact and retroactive enforcement and penalty revenue, zero effort or expenditure on preventive ‘education’ or process.
In Florida, Sen Bill Nelson is a FATCA yes’er and the schmuck who sent me three totally unrelated responses to my FATCA letters. Unseating that clown is a reality. His opponent is a popular House member who nayed FATCA.
@Mark, I have my eye on Cantwell (Democrat Washington State) another FATCA yes’er. Not sure it’s possible to get her out but I’m going to do my part to try and make it happen.
@JustMe, very nice and well done. This has convinced me to vote for you to represent Americans abroad in the Senate. I’ll write in “JustMe” on the ballot. 🙂
Something like this deserves its own web page with content management that is easily customized and updated.
I’m with Joe Smith. Pour yourself a big glass of energizing KoolAid and jump right into US electoral politics. (The position of US overseas voting coordinator for Guyana seems to be vacant right now!)
Believe with all your heart that you will clip a fraction of a toenail off of Behemoth. Meanwhile the homeland appreciates your expenditure of time and effort on pointless makework. That frenetic activity reassures them that you will not expend those LCU’s on anything that does not support the mythology of despotocracy. (Woopsie, sorry for that lexical slippage!)
It’s the numbers, stupid. As Overseas Vote Foundation so usefully reminds us. In 2008 a total of 262,612 ballots counted, perhaps 7% of the eligible overseas population.
All-out effort to make sure Mittrack Obomney gets elected! It’ll make so much difference. As will even one single Congresscritter won or lost. Those huge and decisive voter messages just wait to be lobbed from afar. Lob since you cannot hope to lobby. PAC vobiscum.
http://www.opencongress.org/bill/111-h2847/show
The Senate rollcall on the bill. Check yourself who voted yes or no
Click around, and you can see the contributors on the bill, of which attorneys were the highest.
Who got the most? Reid, Shumer, Boxer, etc.
http://www.govtrack.us/congress/bills/111/hr2847
THis one should be a vote in the House of Reps. With both links you could click around to find necessary info.
House seats go up each 2 years.
*Chris Borgia appears to be the only individual in Florida who wants to be elected into the Senate. Here’s one thing that he writes:
I’ll have to clarify with him though if this only applies to corporations or if he ever thought about voters too. His contact page is more expat-friendly than that of Ron Paul
Wow! Some really great links and information. Thanks, everyone. When I first posted this on the Flophouse, I got some very interesting mail about it which I can’t share because I respect people’s privacy but I was hoping for feedback. My take on things is not necessarily right – I offer it as one idea among a lot of very good ideas that folks here have.
@Joe, I see your point and I respect your feelings about it. Thing is, right now we don’t know what will and will not work. I think we need to explore all avenues and I think there needs to be different options for different people. I’ve talked to compatriots here in my host country and many are not comfortable with the idea of approaching their host governments because they are not yet citizens and they don’t want to call attention to themselves. Even some of the duals have refused because of a certain anti-immigrant streak in their host countries – they don’t want to be exposed as duals or migrants.
@badger, I really like your analysis. Yes, some folks should *not* vote. If someone does not consider himself a U.S. citizen or is in the process of renouncing, best not to give the U.S. gov a hook to give them more hell.
@swisspinoy, I second your motion about Just Me. Petros too. 🙂
I believe Romney has started his European Trip? Listen closely, this is his one chance to bring up FATCA to his contributors overseas.
@Mark, Perhaps it would be worth writing a quick note to him thanking him for (gasp!) getting out of the country (not the norm for a U.S. pol) and calling attention to the one or two things we would like him to think about while he is asking for our money. 🙂 Contact info here:
http://www.mittromney.com/contact-us
I’m going to do it. If I get an answer, I’ll share it here.
@Tim, My representative, Chris Van Hollen (D-MD), was born abroad and lived in multiple countries. He is also a member of the Americans Abroad Caucus. I was excited when I found out about this, so I contacted him by email and talked to his staff in person, about citizenship-based taxation and FBAR issues. I never got any response. I don’t think I’ll vote for him.
A few questions to all:
What does it take to get a response from a representative or senator?
Has anyone here ever had success with a response?
Are representatives more likely to respond than senators?
Are republicans more likely to respond than democrats?
Are we allowed to contact representatives of other districts or senators of other states?
So far, I’ve contacted Ron Paul, Obama, John Tierney and two Senate candidates in Florida via their web contact pages. No one has responded so far regardless if I used a US or a foreign address. I’ve been exploring, over the last few weeks, how to best approach my “representative” where I’m registered to vote, but his current legal situation might send him to jail before that happens and I’ll probably be “moving” to another district before that happens anyways.
Just sent a message to Bill Nelson, using a US address:
The only responses I got from my Florida rep & 2 Senators was from Bill Nelson–1st, thanking me for my interest in farm subsidies (HR2487), then 2 more similar ones randomly on other issues. Nothing from Rubio who should have loads of dual-citizen constituents.
I have a fundraising email from Connie Mack (opponent of Bill Nelson), to which I asked the FATCA stance question.
I have a campaign advertisement for the county prosecutor office delivered to my foreign mailbox.
I have no idea how people would connect with their parliament representatives here.
http://www.thelocal.se/39304/20120224/
I think there is a precedent here.
Internationella Åklagarkammaren is stated as being similar to Eurojust
@Swisspinoy, That is a very good letter. Your first paragraph is outstanding.
@ShadowRaider, Best I’ve been able to get is a form email note that says, “Thank you for writing…” Some other thoughts.
First of all the fact that we are not getting answers does not mean that they are not being read. It may even be in our favor that they are not responding. This is a bit of information that can be used to build a strong case that we have terrible representation. I’d say there might even be enough to make the most cynical U.S. journalist sit up and take notice. Think of the great headlines they could get out of this: “US vet (or if you want to use my case middle-aged mother of two with cancer) damaged by/living in fear of FATCA – local U.S. politicians unresponsive and uncaring. ” And then we start naming names. Would I be willing to do this? Hell yes. Because it’s true and if we are going to consistently be defamed in the media I think it’s fair to start hitting back. Hard.
That is one avenue. Another would be to create an organization dedicated to organizing the pushback that does get involved in U.S. politics, is devoted to getting the message across and is willing to out those U.S. pols who are for the most part ignoring the whole business. I think this kind of org is called a PAC and I see it as something that would compliment the efforts of groups like the AARO or ACA. To their sweet reasonableness, we could add something a little punchier and a lot less polite. This org could certainly do as you suggest, Shadowraider, and start contacting incumbents (the current crop of reps) and their opponents. What both need (if we want them to throw their support against the things that we are against) is political cover. The debate must be reframed from “chasing evil tax evaders” to “look at all these nice folks (veterans, moms, retirees, working people) just like you who are getting screwed because of these laws and policies.” Pols won’t go out on a limb for the first (too dangerous) but perhaps we can make it equally dangerous for them not to support the latter. 🙂
Your thoughts?
*VoteSmart.org has something where interest groups can define how relevant people or issues are for their cause. Americans abroad have nothing. We don’t exist. How about starting here. This would make it simple and visible to see where expats stand on the issues. Create an interest group, determine its core values and then rank everything. Make the IBS shame list more visible. Create a carrot/stick standard like calling expat-unfriendly (insulting) activity “Stateside” or the contrary cool stuff “Offshore”. Better document and organize communication efforts such as my Bill Nelson letter to which he did not respond (of course). Victoria, I’d say, do it all, one step at a time.