Structure
Do Polarity acts as an escrow clearing house. Money is temporarily held in escrow until a set time. A comparison is made and funds distributed. These funds are distributed in each individuals name.
Do Polarity is a non-profit organization but will collect a fee for their service so they can stay in business. Since this is the sole purpose of the organization we can keep our admin costs lower than multiple campaigns that are spun up for a temporary time. In addition we do not support nepotism or giving cushy jobs to reward cronies.
Contributions per individual will be stored for tax, legal, and audit purposes.
Core Commandments
The success of Do Polarity is measured in donor dollars willingliy given, diverted to charity instead of politics. Maintaining high ethical standards is paramount to success.
- We serve our Donors, nobody else.
- We do not influece elections.
- Our internal finances must be public, keeping pressure to maintain an efficient operating ratio.
- Our donor data must remain private. Security and intergrity are not afterthoughts.
- Strong secruity from day one. Security is an investment, not a cost.
- Donor data is sacred. It should be treated like the CEO's personal finances.
- Do Polarity is not politial. We do not endorse candidates, parties, postitions, or give our opinions.
- We have a singular mission, diverting money from politics to charity.
If ever in doubt, refer to rule 1 and 2.
Transparent Rules
Donors should be able to reconstruct our results. We do not have a "secret sauce", we have a published recipe.
It should be possible, and advisable to provide a data dump for public scrutiny. No personal information need be included: UUIDs, timestamps, candidate and donataion amount in CSV/SQL format. Also include formulas and calculations.
Extraordinary circumstances may arise. Follow published rules as best as possible, be transparent in deviations and always refer back to rule 1 and 2.
Simple Example
For this example, we will assume there are 5 donors. The time of close is Sunday 12:00 AM EST. At this time the funds are compared and distributed and everything resets.
| Donor | Blue | Red |
|---|---|---|
| Alice | 40 | |
| Bob | 30 | |
| Charlie | 50 | |
| Debbie | 50 | |
| Ernie | 10 |
Team Blue has the most money at $100, beating team Red's $80. All of team Red's money ($80) and matching funds from team blue ($80) go to charity. Out of the $180 donated, $160 goes to charity. The remain $20 is giving to Team Blue's candidate.
For Team Blue: Bob contributed 50%, Alice 40%, and Ernie 10%. Bob would get a receipt showing he donated $40 to charity and $10 to Team Blue's candidate. Alice would have donated $32 (40% of $80) to charity and $8 to Team Blue's candidate. Ernie donated $8 to charity and $2 to Team Blue's candidate.
Since Team Red's money went to charity, for tax and legal purposes, they haven't made any political contributions yet. Team Blue has, but only 20% of what they donated. If they want, they can continue to contribute until they hit the legal limit. If you are thinking, won't that let the losing team contribute more money? Yes it will, to charity. The legal limit still holds for contributions to political campaigns.
If legal, donor info will not be shared with the candidates. The IRS may need to know, but the candidate does not and should not know.
Team Red and Blue are examples only. In life we are on team purple, team human. We all want the same things we simply disagree on the best way to accomplish our goals.
Scope
Big money is in Presedential Elections but there are a lot of other elections and the money adds up. The exact same method can be used for State, Senate, House and Party donations.
Questions and Caveats
Does donating directly offer a candidate an advantage?
Giving money directly to a candidate helps candidate get rich; it does not help them win the election. Example: Team Blue donates $100 through Do Polarity. Team Red gives $100 direct to the candidate. The end result is both get $100.
Two party system and third party candidates
We do not want to influence elections. If a third-party candidate is a contender then our system may influence the election and we bow out. Example: Red and Blue both get $100 donated through us, canceling each other out. Green gets $20 direct. Our involvement may influence the election. If a third party candiates hits a funding threshold, say [20%] of the next closest candidate, we no longer except donations for that race.
Will large corporate donors and Super-Pacs have undue influence?
Not normally, and no. Unless donations are highly skewed it will all balance out. End the end, only voters can vote.