I read an article in the Op-Ed section of The New Yorks Times a couple weeks ago that made a lot of sense. Howard Schultz, chairman and CEO of Starbucks sent out an e-mail to his Starbucks employees titled "Leading Through Uncertain Times." Although the title struck me as similar to Jerry Maguire's missive to his sports agency in said movie (right before he gets canned), the idea he esposed is both brilliant and revolutionary. Instead of "Less Clients, More Attention", he proposed that the country should go on strike against its politicians by refusing to give money to either party until they wise up and put America and Americans ahead of party politics.
His theory is that members of Congress make decisions based on re-election and since "the lifeblood of their re-election campaigns is political contributions", that if Americans (big donors and small) stop making contributuions that will give Congress the motivation to start acting responsibly on their behalf. It's no surprise that when Schultz researched the level of political contributions since the year 2000, it has steadily increased each year from 3 to 5 billion in 2008. The "final straw" for Schultz was the inablity to reach a compromise during the debt ceiling crisis. He believed it was "destructive to the country, yet entirely manufactured for political gain. He envisions the boycott to be completely bi-partisan and thinks Congress's job one, should be the creation of new jobs. When that task is accomplished, the boycott would be lifted.
How about it? Are you (to use another movie reference) "Mad as hell, and not going to take it anymore?" Do you want Congress, Democrats and Republicans, to be worried about you and your family or their job and party? Are you willing to put your (lack of) money where your mouth is? I have donated to political parties and specific candidates in the past. I am willing to stop contributions in order to effect change.