The idea on the outside looks good, but the more it is thought about, the more it doesn't make sense. Basically it will tie up efforts with layers of beauracracy, much like the Federal Government does. The more "layers" you add the more money that must be spent on administration rather than the individual state efforts. In NJ, we already have a group working on legislative efforts. We have attorneys (ferret owning), vets and lots of people who are working with us. We have support by various politicians already. Adding another group into the mix will only confuse things. By the way, our group is comprised of members of AFA, LOS and former FURO members who are all working together for the common good. HOWEVER- we leave our affiliations at the door- none of those groups has anything to do with our completely separate organization. We have attended both AFA and LOS shows as a group. We have no membership dues, people can donate as they choose to or not at all. So far we have had no problem getting funds when we really needed to. Becuase it is being done in the state, in a grass roots manner, we have no need for fancy press agents or lobbyists. Our press agents are the people who call their local talk radio stations and talk about the issues, and our lobbyists are the people who call their local congressmen and voice their message. Think about it- who is the local assemblyman going to hear- his constituent who vows to campaign actively and aggressivley against him if he votes the wrong way, or the guy from Colorado who sends a fax. Rather than one "National" group, why not do it this way...each state forms their own group. One person from each state group is designated as the "Liason" for contact with other groups. As each state has a vote geting ready in the Lesgislature, or a Kodo type case, the liason for that state will contact the liason for the other states who will then contact the members of the other states. This way there is no "National" administration which needs funding, it is all done grass roots style, state to state. The members of each state group will know their states laws, so no one will need to know all states laws. Also, in some states, the keyword is walk softly but carry a mighty stick, while in others it is scream and shout. Each state group will act independantly in the manner best for their particular state, yet they will cooperate with each other when need be. Also, when it comes to funding, here in NJ, where our group has no membership fees, I know that many of us donated money for the Kodo cause. However, if we had had membership fees, people probably wouldn't have donated, thinking the group already had...but if the group had just spent a ton o' cash on printing and mailing letters to politicians due to an upcoming vote, perhaps they hadn't sent anything as there was nothing to send. Also, the amount of money being suggested as membership dues on the National level is just too high for some people. We have a lot of people in the NJ group who can not afford to pay membership dues. They still want to help, and will go out and get petitions signed, hang fliers, whatever. You will be excluding the most important people if a National organiztion is formed, that of those willing to really get their hands dirty in the trenches. Lastly on the issue of money, one of the problems with any organization is the issue of accountability. You are suggesting that a huge amount of money will be taken in. Who will control the funds? Who will issue checks to different sub-groups, and on what basis will they be issued? What if funds are low, and three states are up for crucial votes and need additional funding. Who will decide who gets the last dollars? Please take a moment to think about my comments. The thought of a National Organization is good, but simply too problematic. Let this be done state to state, with cooperation between the different state groups. It will be a much better means to an end. -Anne [Posted in FML issue 1976]