Re: Draft of fundraising letter

From: Arthur Keller <arthur_at_kellers_dot_org>
Date: Tue Aug 17 2004 - 18:26:35 CDT

At 1:32 PM -0700 8/17/04, Alan Dechert wrote:
> > > In a widely quoted speech last month that I gave on the Capitol steps
>> > in
>> > Salt Lake City Utah, I said,
>>
>> It reads better to me to move some words:
>>
>> > In a widely quoted speech that I gave last month on the Capitol steps
>> > in
>> > Salt Lake City Utah, I said,
>>
>Okay.
>
>>
>> > Do you agree with that? Do you also think that we're spending too
>> > much on
>> > voting machines made by Diebold, ES&S, Sequoia, and the rest?
>>
>> I think you need an adjective to help negatively characterize the
>> problem with the proprietary vendors.
>>
>> Maybe "...made by self-interested private companies such as Diebold,..."
>>
>> Obviously, we don't want to commit libel. But not everyone already
>> knows what's wrong with these vendors.
>>
>not sure that does much. "Self-interested private companies" is not really
>negative in the minds of most--just a fact of life.
>
>>
>> > What if an organization could develop a machine unlike these expensive,
>> > proprietary, paperless voting machines-one that was inexpensive,
>> > non-proprietary open source, and that produced a printed summary
>> > ballot that
>> > the voter could verify before casting?
>>
>> Here "open source" is not self-evident in meaning to all readers.
>> Maybe:
>>
>> > ...a machine unlike these expensive,
>> > proprietary, paperless voting machines--one that was inexpensive,
>> > non-proprietary, had source code examinable by all voters, and that
>> > produced a printed summary ballot that the voter could verify before
>> > casting?
>>
>Okay, I put something like that
>
>>
>> > designed as a 501(6)
>>
>> I think your MS software is overzealous in corrections. Yet another
>> reason to ditch MS: you can write 501(c)(6) as intended.
>>
>Got it [embarassed].
>
>> Of course, the organization is also "designated" not "designed"...
>> well, it -was- "designed" by us, but that's not what you mean.
>>
>Actually, I did mean designed. It's a foregone conclusion that we will be a
>501(c)(6), but until we actually have the application approved by the IRS,
>we probably should not say we are actually a 501(c)(6). There is nothing
>tricky here and it's of no tax consequence this year, but it will take some
>time.
>
>Here's what I have now:
>*****
>In a widely quoted speech that I gave last month on the Capitol steps in
>Salt Lake City Utah, I said, "The concept of invisible ballots created with
>secret software is fundamentally flawed."[1]
>
>Do you agree with that? Do you also think that we're spending too much on
>voting machines made by Diebold, ES&S, Sequoia, and the rest?
>
>What if an organization could develop a machine unlike these expensive,
>proprietary, paperless voting machines--one that was inexpensive,
>non-proprietary, had publicly examinable programming source code, and that
>produced a printed summary ballot that the voter could verify before
>casting?
>
>Volunteer engineers working with the Open Voting Consortium (OVC) have
>worked long and hard to make such a machine available. We also have
>developed a viable plan for how this voting machine can be delivered and
>supported. Our system was described in a San Jose Mercury News Editorial as
>"the holy grail of election officials" [2] on April 8th -- a week after our
>successful demonstration at the County Government Center in San Jose
>California [3].
>
>We need your help today so the Open Voting Consortium plan can reach a new
>stage closer to deployment as a replacement for the not-ready-for-prime-time
>technology that has been foisted on the American public. We have multiple
>proposals under consideration by state and local election officials. We
>also have invited foundation proposals

also have submitted proposals invited by
foundations that are interested in supporting our
efforts.

> that look likely to receive support.

However, it will be a while before funding from
these proposals is available. We need money now,
so we can expand our efforts to develop and
evangelize our safe and secure approach to
electronic voting.

>We need seed/bridging money so that we can continue to expand our efforts
>until expected institutional support comes through.
>
>In April, we conducted a successful fundraising drive to raise $4,000 in one
>week [4]. That was just what we needed then. Now, I think $20,000 is what
>we need for this stage.

Now, we need $20,000 to build momentum.

>Ideally, I would like to raise at least $10,000 in
>one-time grants, and sign up 1,000 "Supporting Members" at $10 per month.
>Please visit our web site. You can make your contribution on line via
>PayPal

to donation@openvotingconsortium.org

>. We are also happy to receive checks in the mail. If you have other
>ideas about how you can contribute, please call or email.
>
>Your donations will enable us to reach a wider audience, including
>decision-makers that need to have the details set before them in writing as
>well as the general public.
>
>The OVC is a nonprofit

consortium incorporated in California.

(drop the rest of the sentence.)

>California corporation designed as a 501(c)(6)
>organization. You contribution will not be tax deductible [5], but you will
>be helping to secure democracy for generations to come.
>
>Alan Dechert
>http://www.OpenVotingConsortium.org
>alan@openvoting.org
>9560 Windrose Lane
>Granite Bay, CA 95746
>916-791-0456
>
>[1] See http://tv.ksl.com/index.php?nid=5&sid=106183
>[2] See http://www.kentucky.com/mld/mercurynews/news/opinion/8383100.htm
>[3] See http://www.dalelane.co.uk/cache/ovc_news4.htm
>[4] See http://www.openvotingconsortium.org/news.html
>[5]

OVC is applying for 501(c)(6) designation as a trade association.

>Once we have our software certified,

the members of our trade association will

>we will be a trade association
>whose members will

(continue here)

>deliver the goods and services, including training and
>support. If you join the OVC with business interests in our product, your
>membership dues may be deductible as a business expense. Consult your
>accountant.
>For more details about the OVC architecture,
>See http://www.oreillynet.com/pub/a/policy/2004/04/26/ovc.html

Best regards,
Arthur

-- 
-------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Arthur M. Keller, Ph.D., 3881 Corina Way, Palo Alto, CA  94303-4507
tel +1(650)424-0202, fax +1(650)424-0424
==================================================================
= The content of this message, with the exception of any external 
= quotations under fair use, are released to the Public Domain    
==================================================================
Received on Tue Aug 31 23:17:14 2004

This archive was generated by hypermail 2.1.8 : Tue Aug 31 2004 - 23:17:23 CDT