undeserved crisis of conscience

So I haven't posted since, um, last month, and not too much has happened that requires extensive discussion á la blog. In order of what's been going on since June 30:

1) I got a job with the Grassroots Campaign in Portland, which is currently working with the Democratic National Committee;

2) I went to Seattle and saw Hancock which was horrible, had dinner at P.F. Chang's which was wonderful, and went to a Mariners vs. Tigers game, which was okay;

3) Went to Long Beach for like an hour and a half on the fourth, had a bonfire, blew stuff up, not drunk enough;

4) Secured the job with the DNC by making $149 on my first day (yay!);

5) Have put the job with the DNC at risk by making $0 on my second day and $39 on my third day.

It's this last one that I'm more or less bothered about. Today is gonna be the last day of my first week with the GRC since I've got tickets on Friday to see Elvis Costello (and the Police, but come on). According to the information sheet given to me by the DNC when I had my interview:

All canvassers are expected to raise at least 80% or the average canvasser raised for that week, or $100 per day, whichever is greater. This standard is often referred to as "quota". It is calculated on a weekly basis, so even if a canvasser slips below quota one day, he/she will not necessarily be below quota for the week.

All canvassers who meet or exceed their weekly quota will receive a base pay of $70 per day ($350 per week for a five day work week). After 20 workdays, this base pay will increase to $72 per week, and after 40 workdays it will increase to $74 per day (in both cases for meeting or exceeding weekly quota). Plus:

Once quota is met, canvassers receive 30% of all funds raised above the week's quota.

A canvasser who does not meet quota in a week will not receive base pay, and will instead be paid $7.95 per hour that week.

If a canvasser fails to raise quota (which triggers base pay rather than under quota pay), the must still meet a minimum fundraising standard of $100/day; failure to do so is grounds for termination. Specifically, canvassers must raise more than this amount in one of their first two days, and then consistently average above it each week thereafter.

So it's the bold stuff that I have a problem with. Let me just say, first of all, that I have great respect for the so-called "Grassroots" effort that should sit at the heart of the American political spectrum. Also, I am fully on the wagon so far as the DNC is concerned, not just as a democrat but as a %100 supporter of Barack Obama. And because of that, I have a huge amount of respect for the efforts to raise campaign finances without the support of lobbyists or PAC groups, and thus I understand how important and essential public funds are for this year. I have no qualms with going to people's doors and telling them this.

But there is a fine line between desperate and polite, between being pushy and being friendly. I came home last night worried as hell about making quota for the week, and then I had a moment of clarity: this is a minimum wage job. Sure you can get more than minimum wage at it, but essentially this is a minimum wage, temporary job. And for 30-40 hours a week, $7.95 is pretty good. So why should I feel like this minimum wage job is pressuring me? Why should I feel like I need to be above and beyond what I am for five days of being outside in the heat for eight hours, knocking on people's doors so that either I make a dollar more per hour or I lose my job? There's something somewhat twisted about it, something that says that they think there's a great amount of nobility involved in raising $100 a day, regardless of what neighborhoods you go to be they low- or high-income.

And this brings me to the other thing that's starting to really bother me: I got to someone's door, they say "no", and I can tell from where they're living, the state of their house, and just what they tell me (I'm on a fixed income, I just had a baby, I'm on social security), that they really mean it. They're not just being lazy, stubborn Democrats, they just can't afford to help me out. I should appreciate their time and their support for the party, and be happy to know that, come November, Obama can get their vote. I shouldn't be mad at them for not wanting to help me, and I shouldn't be mad at myself for not being able to suck the $10 or $20 that I might get out of them that could pay for their groceries. And when someone says "I'll think about it, and give online later", I shouldn't have to say "No, give me the money now for x y z reasons." I should respect that they want time to think about it, and having someone come up to their door immediately asking for their money makes them feel on the spot. We should be allowed time to think things over when we give our money to groups.

Is that apathetic of me? Maybe. I'm not as ruthless as a lot of the other people in the office, I'm not as persistent. I don't ever want to feel like I'm being ruthless. But there is something to consider: they call what we do "canvassing", which according to the AHD, is

1. To examine carefully or discuss thoroughly; scrutinize: "The evidence had been repeatedly canvassed in American courts" (Anthony Lewis).
2.
1. To go through (a region) or go to (persons) to solicit votes or orders.
2. To conduct a survey of (public opinion); poll.

Nothing wrong with that; going door to door, getting signatures and petitions signed, getting people to volunteer, it's all good. But there's nothing in there about, you know, the money. When we're out in the field, they tell us not to pay attention to No Soliciting signs. "We're not solicitors, we're community organizers." Okay:

so·lic·it·ed, so·lic·it·ing, so·lic·its

v. tr.

1. To seek to obtain by persuasion, entreaty, or formal application: a candidate who solicited votes among the factory workers.
2. To petition persistently; importune: solicited the neighbors for donations.
3. To entice or incite to evil or illegal action.
4. To approach or accost (a person) with an offer of sexual services.

Barring the last one, of course, that seems a bit more on-target with what it is that we really do. Now we can say that this is because we're persuading people, convincing them of the importance of this election for the Democratic party. But if I'm following the guidelines as given to me on the information sheet, then that's not what we're doing. We're convincing people to give us money. Sorry, give us contributions.

Again, I know how important that money is this year. I also know that $100 is hardly anything compared to the millions that the Democratic party has raised and will continue to raise, as well as the personal purses of the candidates involved.

And you know what else? Remember the nice people who were on welfare but couldn't support us financially because of their situation? Okay, now think of one of those well-to-do people who gladly sit down and write a $200 contribution. The one who could help us is still worth one vote, as is the one who couldn't. They're equal in a democracy, and it's the votes, not the money, that is going to decide the election. From what I've seen with the people I've talked to, even the Republicans who say they're leaning a little to the left, the race is going to be tough but Obama as well as all the Democrats supporting him stand a great chance at the polls, and hey, that's where you get elected president. That's one of the things that not taking money from federal lobbyists means: that all of a sudden, it's not about money and what the people who give money want. It's about issues and what the voters want. That's the way that it should be.

Long story short, I'm going in to talk to one of the supervisors in a little bit, after I eat something for lunch and get dressed. I'm going to go in early, tell them everything that's on my mind, and ask them to give it to me straight: whether I'm there to help the Democratic Party by getting awareness up and talking to people, while also spreading the word about how campaign finance is run this year and how essential financial support is, or if it's really about those last two words, and not really about the cause; that I'm saying what I have to (within reason) so that they will give me money and I'll keep my job. And if it's the latter, then am I really any better than a door-to-door salesman? Well, I would say that I'm worse; a door to door salesman at least sells something, all I'm selling is the idea of the Democratic party, an idea that, at it's core, should rely on the hopes and opinions of its constituents, and not their wallets.