Voter registration is as important as volunteers and fundraising for a campaign. You can't win if you don't have the votes. Learn how to find unregistered voters and why a successful voter registration drive can lead to victory.

Former Leadership Institute staff member Steve Stockman won the Republican Party primary run-off in Texas' newly created 36th district. He's got a shot at returning to the halls of Congress after an absence of 16 years, once November's general election has been won. Steve was elected as a congressman in the 1994 Republican Revolution during which Republicans regained control of the House after 40 years. He served the people of Texas' ninth congressional district from 1995 to 1997. “The reason we won, I think, is because of grassroots, get-out-the-vote training at the Leadership Institute through Morton Blackwell,” Steve said. “LI's training gave us the edge. More than half of my campaign staff was LI trained. They were very dedicated. They slept on the floor in a warehouse for just a few hours each night. We had a lot of ‘3 a.m. types' that were working nonstop for the campaign.” His opponent spent four times as much as Steve's under-the-radar grassroots campaign. “The greatest thing I learned from LI training,” Steve shared, “was how to run campaigns efficiently without wasting money.” Kristine Brakstad, who interned for the Leadership Institute in spring 2011, volunteered her time to make calls for Steve's campaign. “I persuaded those l could and called to give them our side of the story,” Kristine shared. “It was challenging for sure. You get used to people yelling at you, calling you names, and hanging up. But for every person yelling at you, you will also get someone thanking you for the job you do and praying for your victory. It was the most rewarding experience l have ever had, and I am so blessed and honored to have played a small part in Steve Stockman's return to Congress.” She added, “Our volunteers slept on the floors in an automobile warehouse and worked countless hours. Just because we all knew this candidate was different.” “We each called thousands of voters, contacted all friends and family, used Facebook actively, and ended up getting the endorsements from major conservative organizations and groups,” Kristine said. As LI President Morton Blackwell often says and writes, “The winner in a political contest over time is determined by the number and effectiveness of the activists and leaders on the respective sides.” Stockman's race was no different. Victory was about mobilizing the grassroots. Another devoted campaigner was Thomas Dodd, also a former LI staffer from 2005 to 2007. Tom flew down to Texas several times to help make phone calls, place yard signs around the district and in neighborhoods, work the copier as they made in-house mailers, and “man” the polls during early voting. “I drank about 10 water bottles a day,” Tom admitted. “I learned from the locals how to survive the hot Texas summer heat. Steve and I survived the South Sudan weather, so I knew I could survive Texas weather.” When asked about what prompted their campaign victory, Tom said: “Steve Stockman is what made the difference. Most candidates just don't know political technology; he does.” Steve believes in political technology so much that he encouraged one of his staffers—Brad Lewis—to come to LI's week-long Campaign Management School the week after their primary win. “I met Steve back in 1990,” Brad told me between lectures at LI. “I was the chairman of the Christian Coalition in Beaumont, Texas and someone introduced us. I took Steve all over Jefferson County to meet pastors. At the Christian Coalition, we won 66 percent of our precincts back in 1988 when I ran Pat Robertson's campaign. After Steve's first election attempt, I moved to Hardin County and lost touch with Steve for 19 years.” In January, they reconnected through email first, then several phone calls. “Steve called me and we caught up on politics and family,” Brad said. “Steve asked what I had been doing with my life and I told him I had been in the financial services industry doing estate planning and hosting a radio show every Saturday. Steve asked if I knew he was running for Congress again, and I replied no. At that point, Steve asked me to be over the eastern district which took in seven counties.” Brad continued, “Well, I didn't have to think about it; I jumped in with both feet.” Because of Steve's last-day entrance to the race, many people were already committed to other candidates, Brad shared. So he worked with what he had: a man named Rusty Fisher who Brad called his “signs man” and two homeschooled children who made tons of calls. “We put 17,000 miles on our car over a three-month period traveling over the district,” Brad reported. “I spoke at churches and home meetings. I made robo calls and told Steve's story of a true American hero that went to the Sudan and took medical supplies to Christians....I told stories about missionaries that were thrown into prison in India and Steve Stockman intervened and won their freedom. Steve is too modest, but I told him to tell these stories.” Steve's campaign manager was Donny Ferguson, born and raised near Beaumont, Texas. “Basically my job was to figure out how many votes we needed to win, where those votes are, how to reach them, how to organize them for voting, and how to get ballots in their hands,” Donny shared. Donny first learned of LI in 1997 when the Institute held a Grassroots Activist School at Texas A&M University, where he was attending. In April 2010, he returned to take LI's Campaign Manager School in Arlington, VA. “LI's schools keep people focused on the key point to organizing and teach you how to do it,” Donny said. “If you're not moving people to take action faster than the other guy, you're losing.” Currently, Donny is running Ferguson & Associates, a fundraising business for campaigns using direct mail and email. He's also the executive director of American Tradition Partnership, a grassroots advocacy group dedicated to defeating radical environmentalists in Congress and state legislatures. Kristine, mentioned earlier, first learned of LI through Steve Stockman. In 2006, she met Steve at the International Young Democrat Union council meeting in London, where she served as a board member of the College Conservatives in Norway, the country she's originally from. “There I met one of my heroes Baroness Margaret Thatcher as well as a team of students and staffers from LI, including Steve Stockman,” Kristine remembered. “He later encouraged me to attend trainings at LI which turned out to be excellent advice.” “Morton's Laws of the Public Policy Process as well as his speech on handling negative information are by far the most important lessons I've taken home from the Leadership Institute,” Kristine shared. “The Youth Leadership School experience was helpful, as were the fundraising techniques, building relationships/coalitions, and how to effectively reach voters with the message you want. All have been tools that have come to good use during Steve Stockman's campaign.” “The Leadership Institute has given me good friendships, contacts, and great knowledge. My internship at LI Studios (pictured above) made it clear to me that this is what I am meant to be doing,” Kristine said. “Thanks to LI, l am equipped with the knowledge of where I want to go and how to get there. I am very grateful for the opportunities and lessons learned at the Leadership Institute.” And she hopes to be a part of Steve's team on Capitol Hill, once elected. “I cannot think of a better candidate and would be honored to help serve on his staff,” Kristine said. Steve worked for the Leadership Institute from 2005 to 2007. He said, “I created a lot of new campus groups around the country and taught at LI trainings regularly.” “The Leadership Institute is THE place for anyone interested in politics, American or international,” Kristine said. “LI teaches you everything from dressing successfully for a job interview to effectively communicating your message in a short TV interview. If you are interested in a career in politics or plan to be in the public eye, you cannot go wrong with getting LI training. LI is where you meet the right people, get the right training so you can be the right person at the right time and get your dream job.” “We focused our resources on grassroots organizing and innovative direct mail, instead of how most campaigns waste their money on TV ads and billboards,” said campaign manager Donny. “When Steve wins in November, I will be his district director and I will build coalitions all over our district,” Brad said. Please welcome Steve Stockman as LI's Graduate of the Week. The Leadership Institute is a 501 (c) 3 organization that does not endorse or oppose any candidate or legislation, and all programs are open to the public. To nominate a Leadership Institute graduate or faculty member to be featured as LI's spotlight of the week, please contact LI's External Affairs Officer Lauren Hart at LaurenHart@LeadershipInstitute.org.

Morton Blackwell delivered this speech at the Second Annual Conservative Leadership Conference, in Washington, D.C. on November 10, 1990. Knowledgeable conservatives, in moments of candor, will admit our grassroots activity is far less today than a dozen years ago. Several causes come initially to mind:• We do not have a Ronald Reagan, persuasively reliable on all our issues, around whom to rally.• The success of conservative economic policies has brought an unprecedented period of economic prosperity, lessening our fears for the survival of the free enterprise system.• The success of conservative policies of peace through strength has helped engender the utter extinction of the Brezhnev Doctrine and hastened the collapse of much of the Soviet empire.• Our ancient liberal enemies have ceased to trumpet much of their old ideology and seem to be doing all they can to sound as if they are conservatives on many issues. Most of these causes are the natural results of successful policies of a newly formed, governing majority coalition, signs of the cyclical process familiar in a healthy, two party system. When the threat perception declines, activists tend to lose much of their old enthusiasm. Coalition members tend to start bickering. But these reasons are not sufficient to explain the extent of the current decline in grassroots activism. New governing coalitions in the United States tend to last for a generation or two. Other factors are at work. Today I intend to discuss two other factors, the increasing domination of political consultants and growing failure of conservatives to run candidates. These are factors which affect our opponents as well. But the extent of the damage done to us by these two factors is largely in our power to correct. First let us consider the career path of a successful political consultant. Here is what happens: A smart campaign staffer helps win a high visibility election and decides to become a consultant. The new consultant is soon involved in another win or two and is suddenly able to sell his services to many campaigns. While able to give his few, early clients a great deal of personal time, working through many levels of their campaign organizations, the consultant quickly finds it impossible to give the same type of service to half a dozen candidates simultaneously. Unable now to supervise detailed operations involving many layers of people in many campaigns at once, the consultant directs his client campaigns toward media-intensive, rather than people-intensive activity. Media decisions are few in number. They require skill but little time. The consultant also realizes it is very much in his own financial interest to have as much as possible of his clients' budgets spent on media. Most consultants take a 15% commission (over and above client-paid production costs and his retainer) from media vendors for all placements. The consultant knows he gets no commission for campaign funds spent on people-intensive activity, such as:• Precinct organization• Voter ID phone banks• Voter registration drives• Youth effort• The election day process to get out the vote With their budgets warped towards media spending, candidates and their in-state organizations are led to measure the progress of their campaigns only in terms of dollars raised and tracking polls. (When I ask a candidate in a close race how he is doing and he answers by first describing his fundraising progress, I know he is in trouble.) In defense of his practices, the consultant develops an outspoken contempt for any proposal, significant campaign expenditures except for paid media. Many of his clients lose due to their failure to organize large numbers of people in their campaigns. But some of his clients do win. These winners are the ones the consultant talks about as he recruits clients in the next election cycle. Having helped several candidates, the consultant is likely to be hired again to run their reelection campaigns. The incumbents have the ability to amass huge campaign funds, often from local donors. Even in the closing days of a reelection campaign where an incumbent is virtually unopposed, the consultant has a strong incentive to urge their incumbent on to raise more and more money. Never mind that conservative candidates in other contests in the area might actually win close contests but for the incumbent's having vacuumed up so much money from available donors. After all, for every additional $100,000 spent on broadcast media, the consultant will pocket a cool $15,000 plus his fees for creating any new commercials. The consultant, now prosperous and enjoying a changed lifestyle, has ready access to and influence with some incumbent officeholders. He decided to branch out into lobbying, where his influence enables him to pull down some really fat fees from major corporations, trade associations, and even foreign governments which have major financial interests in the decision of elected and appointed government officials. By now, most of the consultant's income does not come from election campaigns. But he continues to take some candidates as clients, partly to keep his valuable ties with incumbents and partly because there are in each election cycle some rich candidates and others able to raise big war chests, which will be spent largely on campaign media, still a fine source of income for the consultant. Every experienced conservative campaign activist has seen outrageous examples of this behavior. My luncheon for conservative campaign activists has met bi-weekly, without exception, since 1974. I keep close touch with the election process. I'm not raising this as a theoretical problem. Not all successful consultants behave this way. A great many do. But others, particularly those who specialize in one or more aspects of campaign technology such as direct mail, telephone canvassing, coalition building and youth efforts, do not. This growing problem with consultants has many bad effects:• The unnecessary losses of many conservative candidates each year• The looting of millions of dollars misspent on media• The suckering of many right candidates who are falsely led by consultants to believe they can win• The increasing perception that campaigning is mostly mudslinging TV commercials• Worst of all, the general decline of citizen participation as activists and, often, even as voters in the political process Historically, volunteer participation in elections is the greatest preparation for competent campaign management and good candidates in future elections. That source of new activists and candidates is drying up. Can grassroots activists do anything to limit the damage done by the increasing dominance of campaign consultants? Certainly. One big reason for reliance on campaign consultants is the increasing complexity of modern election technology. But in the years leading up to the election of 1980 conservative organizations ran massive political education and training efforts. Activists were prepared by the thousands. That grassroots infrastructure building should be vigorously resumed. If you are a donor to a conservative organization you should demand that a substantial portion of its budget should be spent on increasing the number and the effectiveness of its activists. If a group fails to do this, give to other groups instead. If you are a donor to a party organization, demand that it spends your money, in part, on a serious program of political education and training. There is hardly any area of political technology which cannot be mastered by a willing local activist. The Republican party was spending a much higher percentage of its revenue on political education and training twenty years ago than it is today. The GOP is giving only peanuts to its volunteer base. Be careful that the training programs actually teach useful skills. Many seminars which purport to teach local activists are taught by consultants not interested in preparing volunteer competitors. Such programs serve only to teach the participants that the consultant knows his topic and is worthy of hire. If you contribute to a candidate, you have the right to demand that his campaign give a healthy budget to people-oriented programs: precinct organizations, women's activities, youth efforts, etc. These activities build grassroots infrastructure like no others. Let us now turn to the problem of the growing failure of conservatives to run candidates. More and more it is proving impossible to recruit conservative candidates against incumbents or even for open seats. Challengers for even local incumbents often cannot be found. The next Congress will have only four Republicans among the ten congressman from my home state of Virginia. But ten years ago we elected nine of the ten. And the lone Democratic congressman was more was more conservative than some of the Republicans. And all six of the Virginia Democratic congressmen are quite liberal by Virginia standards. And, what is worse, far worse, is the dreadful fact that we did not run Republican challengers against any of the five incumbent Democrats. They got off scot free. But don't for a moment think the Democrats gave our five incumbent Republicans a free ride. No, there were Democratic challengers to all five of our congressmen. And the challenger who beat Congressman Stan Parris reportedly raised more money than any other challenger against a Republican incumbent in the United States this year. This problem in my state is typical of the situation in many parts of the country. In fact, there is a fundamental misconception which is shared by many conservatives and many Republican leaders. This political error is not unique to Virginia. It is, I believe, a misunderstanding of how best to build grassroots strength through running candidates. Too many of us think we should run a candidate only when we think there is a good chance we can win the election. And, since nobody believed we could beat any of the five incumbent Virginia Democratic congressmen, nobody ran against any of them. I submit that, in the case of these ten congressional races, the Democrats acted smarter than the Republicans. But not running a candidate often sounds so reasonable, doesn't it? Why spend the time and money it takes to run and almost surely losing race? Why ask a candidate to take on an almost surely losing candidacy? Why embarrass the party or the conservative cause by losing badly? Why take the chance of diverting resources from our candidates elsewhere who have a chance to win? Why anger a safe incumbent opponent? All these sound like pretty good reasons not to challenge apparently safe liberal incumbents, don't they? Many Republican incumbents, in particular, don't want to rile many of their Democratic colleagues by challenging them. And most of those arguments sound just as good as reasons not to run a candidate in an open district where the liberals seem virtually certain to win. Yet those are arguments which ultimately lead to slow growth, no growth and eventual decline of a movement or a political party. If conservatives in Virginia had operated in this fashion for the past 25 years, Republicans would not have won our first U.S. Senate race, the party would not today hold even four congressional districts and the party would not have the record strength it enjoys today in Virginia's General Assembly and in local offices. Take for example my own congressional district, the Tenth. Conservative Republican Frank Wolf was an unknown in 1976 when he first announced against the incumbent liberal Democratic Congressman Joe Fisher. Frank Wolf campaigned hard but lost the nomination to a state legislator, who was then beaten by Congressman Fisher in November. Frank Wolf again took on this seemingly hopeless task in 1978. He was nominated and did better than the state legislator had two years earlier. But Wolf lost again in 1978. Finally, in 1980, frank Wolf won both the nomination and, narrowly, the general election defeating the incumbent who very few people thought was vulnerable four years earlier. The two earlier races had so weakened the liberal Democratic congressman and so strengthened our organization that we were able to take the district. We have been winning it by convincing margins ever since. Think about this seriously. Everyone who knows much about politics knows of many cases where races against supposedly entrenched incumbents weakened the incumbents so they could be defeated in subsequent elections. Isn't that a fair situation? Isn't that a strong, solid reason to run candidates, almost an obligation to run candidates, even when there is thought to be no chance to win in the current election year? The best know political consultants, by the way, usually advise against running candidates who are very unlikely to win. But such candidates provide the big consultants with no revenue, except in case of rich, hopeless candidates. In this latter case, consultants are often willing to take them as clients. Often to "take" them in both senses of the word. Conservatives who know how important it is to build for the future also know how a losing race can soften up an opponent for future defeat, build credibility for our challengers and build strength of our own organizations. These are powerful reasons not to leave vacant places on the ballot. While we know of losing races which made possible later victories, there is another situation which often occurs. Some conservative activists can remember our Virginia United States Senate race in 1972. An unusual congressman from the Eighth District, Bill Scott, made what most so-called "experts" thought was a hopeless race against the supposedly invulnerable incumbent, U.S. Senator Bill Spong. Now not everyone thought the Scott for Senate cause was hopeless. A conservative Republican leader, Richard Obenshain, thought this so-called "impossible" race was actually winnable. So he set out to win with Scott, certainly one of the most difficult candidates our party has fielded in our lifetimes. But Dick Obenshain was a political genius who saw opportunities where others saw only problems. Bill Scott won. Six years later he turned his U.S. Senate seat over to another Republican whom many of us hoped would have been Dick Obenshain. Senator John Warner won very narrowly in 1978, winning again in 1984 by a big margin. This year Democrats did not challenge Sen. Warner, which is great for Republicans and, in my opinion, bad news or Democrats. But we should remember that almost everyone at first thought Bill Scott could not win this seat when he ran for it 13 years ago. Please think about it. How many times have you, yourself, been pleasantly surprised when a race supposedly hopeless for us has resulted in a thrilling conservative victory? Most of our best conservative members of both houses of the Congress first won in just such circumstances. Sometimes the liberal nominee self-destructs unexpectedly. Sometimes our candidate and his campaigns turn out to be much better than we expected. Surely all of us can think of predicted losers who instead became glorious winners. It that not therefore another good reason to run candidates whom we really don't expect to win? Frankly, looking at the ten congressional districts in Virginia today, how the Democrats treated us and how we treated them, it's a scandal that we have left all their incumbents unchallenged. At the congressional level, Virginia has only a one and a half party system in 1990. How about your state? This situation I call a scandal is not to be blamed on any particular party leaders at the local or state levels. The general idea of not challenging supposedly invulnerable incumbents is common almost everywhere in our country. In my home county of Arlington, our party has very often in recent years failed to run candidates against many of the worst liberals in Virginia. There is plenty of blame to go around. And I'll accept my share. What I am proposing today is not recriminations but a badly needed change of policy, a change of our behavior. Let me put it clearly. Not running candidates is almost worse than putting up losing candidates. Sometimes we produce upset victories. Sometimes we build up candidates for future victories. Always we involve new people who can later help us win future victories. Always we force the opposition incumbents to gather and spend for themselves some resources which might otherwise be spent against our conservative candidateselsewhere. Not running candidates is no way to build a movement or party. If one chooses to be active in a party structure, one necessarily must support that party's incumbents except in extraordinary circumstances. But conservatives primarily active outside a party structure are free of most such constraints. In sum, conservatives should run candidates against liberal incumbents and for open seats regardless of whether or not the potential candidates appear to be possible winners. The only two tests should be these: 1. Will the person act responsibly in the campaign? 2. If elected, would the person be a credit to our cause? If a potential candidate passes these two tests, then encourage him or her to run. Do this regardless of whether or not there appears to be a real chance to win the election.You may not happen to find or be able to recruit to run any independently wealthy, thirty-five year old conservative business leaders with degrees in both economics and political science. If not, you might recruit a politically savvy mother; we have a lot of them across America who would make good candidates. Or run a distinguished retiree. Or even a dedicated and intelligent young person. Each new candidate brings to your cause not only his own time and effort but also the resources and enthusiasm of his own circle of family, friends and supporters. And many people who don't like the liberals are happy we have given them a choice. Of course I don't advocate misleading a potential candidate to think you can provide money or manpower which aren't actually available. Already this happens too often. Give a realistic estimate of this chances of winning. Say what the limits of likely movement resources and party support. The national and state party resources will be and should be focused in the main on candidates with some prospect of election. Curiously, you will find that some people don't mind being run as sacrificial lambs in a good cause. To fill out a Republican ballot, I ran for the state legislature in Louisiana 22 years ago. I was duly sacrificed, but with no lasting ill effects. You will find that some potential candidates will respond to your less than optimistic assessment of their chances by declaring candidacy despite the long odds. Many will convince themselves that they do have a chance. And some may surprise you by actually winning. Look at this from your own experience. Aren't most of the conservative winners you know and almost all of the key workers for conservative winners you know, aren't these people experienced in prior, but losing campaigns? We are trying to build a stable governing majority. Winning today isn't everything. Losing today may open doors to victories tomorrow. Let's fill the ballot where we can.>

Missed last night's webinar? No problem -- watch it whenever you have time today or this weekend. (Click "Read the full story" to get started!) You'll hear from Bryan Bernys on voter goals. Bryan is LI's Vice President for the Campus Leadership Program. Bryan came to the Institute with a wealth of campaign experience: New Hampshire Field Director for the McCain 2008 campaign, Field Director for the Tarrant for Senate campaign in Vermont, Campaign Manager for Robinson for Delegate in Virginia, consultant for the Ball for Delegate special election in Virginia, and field staff for the Bush/Cheney 2004 campaign in Michigan.>

It's going to take a lot more than t-shirts, bumper stickers, and yard signs to target voters. To make the most out of your voter targeting program you must determine how many voters you need to identify, then find what issues motivate them to vote, and finally think outside the box to find the votes to make it to your winning magic number. >

The Lone Star state elected Ted Cruz as its Republican nominee for Kay Bailey Hutchinson's U.S. Senate seat by a 14-point landslide. Cruz is the favorite for the general election in November. After all, no Democrat has been elected to statewide office since 1994. The real story, though, is how a first-time candidate for elected office could pull a Texas-sized upset against the deep pockets and connections of Lt. Governor David Dewhurst. Just how did Ted Cruz do it? Last week we explored Cruz's online dominance led by Leadership Institute (LI) faculty member Vincent Harris. What pushed Cruz over the top was his get-out-the-vote strategy, helped by LI graduate Nick Dyer. Cruz's story is a classic grassroots one. “Being right in the sense of being correct is not sufficient to win,” Leadership Institute President Morton Blackwell writes in The Real Nature of Politics. “You don't win just because your heart is pure, even if you can prove logically that you are right. What, then, does determine victory?” “In our frequent meetings and discussions, we came to our second great conclusion: The winner in a political contest over time is determined by the number and effectiveness of the activists and leaders on the respective sides,” Morton concludes from his 1964 Barry Goldwater campaign experience. The same is true today. “In January, I joined the Ted Cruz campaign as Youth Outreach Director,” Nick Dyer, a graduate of the Leadership Institute's campaign training, said. “I identified leaders on campuses across the state working with them to facilitate projects that I learned about in LI's Youth Leadership School. We tabled to build our organization and built a network of volunteers that were integral to the success of the campaign.” Nick is from a small Northeast Texas town called Cumby. He was one of 27 people in his high school's senior class, from which he graduated in 2005. “It is important to be engaged because this is our future we are talking about. If we get involved at an early age to fight to reduce the size and scope of government, to rein in spending, and defend the Constitution, we have a very real chance of accomplishing those goals,” Nick shared with LI. “Liberty is far too precious of a gift to watch it slip away.” He headed to Texas A&M University for college, but “left school because I did not want to go further into debt with the state of the job market,” Nick shared. “I studied Economics, where I grew frustrated because a lot of it didn't make sense. Well, now I know why: they were teaching bad Keynesian economics.” After a few months successfully running Cruz's youth outreach, Nick was promoted in April to Central Texas Field Director. “This expanded my role beyond the youth to the broader spectrum of the grassroots,” Nick said. “Liberty and the Constitution are powerful volunteer recruitment tools. We gained some of the most dedicated grassroots activists I've ever met. They were ready to do what needed to be done to win. They groaned when I asked them to make another 100 calls, but they did it.” And after Texas' June runoff election, Nick was again promoted. “Our field program expanded and I was named Deputy State Field Director,” Nick shared with the Leadership Institute. “I assisted in managing six regions across 254 counties. With our team of regional directors and a grassroots army the state has never seen, we were able to flip it from Dewhurst to Cruz in the majority of major counties we needed to win. This led to our resounding run-off victory of 57 to 43 percent.” Nick has taken the Leadership Institute's Youth Leadership School in December 2011, Primary Targeting for Liberty training in November 2011, and participated in various LI resume consultations and job fairs. “LI's trainings have been absolutely invaluable to my career,” Nick shared. “I cannot imagine being without the skills that I honed in the incredibly informative sessions. I learned everything from targeting strategies to get-out-the-vote roll-out to crisis management.” In fact, Ted Cruz himself served as volunteer faculty at the Leadership Institute in 2002, when he was director of the Office of Policy Planning at the Federal Trade Commission. He taught at LI's Candidate Development School, now known as the Campaign Management School. “LI has provided some of the most direct influence on my political career and has catapulted me to succeed. I literally would not be in the position I am today if it were not for the Leadership Institute,” Nick said. “I am incredibly grateful for the fantastic organization that Morton Blackwell has created. I'm especially grateful for his Laws of the Public Policy Process. Every axiom is spot on and there is at least one for every political situation you might find yourself in.” LI offers training in 50 states and dozens of countries. Please go here to register for an already-scheduled training or contact LI to request training in your area. “The Leadership Institute is the best source of education to become just that, a leader in the conservative movement. LI doesn't just offer trainings, even though they are incredible. When you attend an LI training, you are starting a lifelong relationship with a group of people who are dedicated, not only to limiting government, but fostering your career to achieve it,” Nick said. “I recommend the Leadership Institute to absolutely anyone who is serious about moving the ball forward for conservatism. You must get involved with the Leadership Institute.” So, what's next for Nick? “I will continue working my behind off to ensure that Texas has a constitutional conservative as our next U.S. Senator,” Nick told LI. “After that, I hope to work on the Hill for a then Senator Cruz for some time. Ultimately, I want to continue to help elect true conservatives that fight tirelessly to defend the Constitution in whatever capacity that may be.” Please welcome Nick Dyer as LI's Graduate of the Week. Other LI graduates on the Cruz campaign are: - Erin DeLullo: finance consultant - Rachel Kania: state field director - Tyler Norris: deputy communications director - Chris Perkins: pollster - Josh Perry: digital director - Nico Rios: political intern The Leadership Institute is a 501 (c) 3 organization that does not endorse or oppose any candidate or legislation, and all programs are open to the public. To nominate a Leadership Institute graduate or faculty member to be featured as LI's spotlight of the week, please contact LI's External Affairs Officer Lauren Hart at LaurenHart@LeadershipInstitute.org.

If you want to learn more, register for the Leadership Institute's Get-Out-the-Vote Workshops in battleground states, or for a free webinar this Wednesday at 7pm EST on voter targeting. Winning an election does not require winning 100% of the vote – only enough votes necessary to win. In many cases this is a plurality of the vote. In other cases when a runoff election is involved, candidates may set a vote goal of reaching a clear majority when it would avoid a runoff election. In any case, the campaign must determine an exact number of votes it plans to reach to win the election. (Learn how to do this in a free, live webinar this Wednesday night, August 15.) Voter contact is then aimed at building to the specified vote goal. Why target? Campaign resources, particularly time and money, are limited. Voter targeting makes you more efficient and more effective. You're more effective because you get the right message to the right voters. You're more effective because you target your resources at the voters you're most likely to persuade to vote. Think of the process. You start by targeting voters who always vote, either your way or they're swing (i.e. undecided) voters. Then you target people who sometimes vote, either your way (encourage them with get-out-the-vote messages) or are swing voters (help persuade them your candidate is the one). Only after you've thoroughly exhausted your contacts with those groups of voters should you target voters unlikely to turn out to the polls. It wouldn't make sense to the do the reverse, would it? How is targeting done? One set of factors involves who exactly can vote in the election. While in a general election any registered voter may cast a ballot, different rules typically apply in primary elections (e.g. closed primary elections based on party registration). Voter contact is aimed at voters who can actually vote in the election. A second set of factors involves which voters are likely to vote in the election. Voter turnout rates are typically highest in a general election in a presidential year. General elections in non-presidential years see lower turnout rates, as do primary elections. The lowest turnout rates are often seen in special elections. Campaigns can determine how voters plan to vote through several means, each with varying levels of accuracy. Voter identification refers to the practice of contacting individual voters and asking them if they plan to support a particular candidate in the upcoming election. The practice is similar to telephone polling, but differs in two ways. First, a much larger number of calls is involved because the purpose is to identify with certainty how each targeted person plans to vote, rather than extrapolating based on a limited sample size. Second, with voter identification programs, each voter's responses are recorded and stored in a database. Polling can also be used to determine segments of the electorate that should be targeted for persuasion and turnout efforts. The practice can be less costly than voter ID programs, but accuracy is diminished because assumptions are used to determine the sentiment of large groups of voters. As the campaign engages in voter contact, the first step normally involves building a level of familiarity with voters who are part of the campaign's target universe. This involves building name recognition and credibility that is vital for future persuasion and turnout messages to be effective. Voter identification programs take place once voters have received some level of contact (or have pre-existing familiarity with the candidate). Voters positively identified as supporters become targets of future turnout messages as Election Day approaches. Voters who are in the target universe but are undecided become targets for persuasion messages. Voters who are firm opponents are usually removed from future contact. Want to learn more? The Leadership Institute will offer a free, live webinar this Wednesday at 7pm EST on voter targeting. If you can't watch it then, you'll find the replay on the website here later in the week. >

Missed last night's webinar? No problem -- watch it whenever you have time today or this weekend.You'll hear from Linwood Bragan on campaign structure and organization. Linwood began his political life in 1972. His campaign experience covers management, operations, finance, and grassroots. Twice he has been a candidate himself. He has lectured in 20 states on political activism, finance, organization and elections from New England to the Rockies and the Great Lakes to the Gulf Coast.You can register right now for next week's webinar: determining voter goals, which will be held live on Wednesday, August 15 at 7pm EST.

Warren Buffett once wisely said, “Risk comes from not knowing what you're doing." Luckily for you, we've asked the experts about how to organize a successful political campaign and we're bringing their answers to you! Putting together a competent staff and hiring consultants that know what they're doing might seem like a daunting task, but it can be simple if you follow logical steps. This week's quick tip videos will help you take the first step in the right direction to build your winning campaign team. >

Whether you're watching the news, volunteering at a local campaign office, or organizing your own run for office, it's helpful to know who's who -- and who's doing what! -- on the campaign trail. So what's the work involved? No matter the size of the campaign, it must focus on 11 key activities, some of which you'll learn about in more detail in the coming weeks: - planning and strategy- day-to-day management- fundraising- communications- research and polling- issues and messaging - voter contact- volunteer coordination- coalitions- scheduling- advance The structure of the campaign and the roles of the staff are based on dividing up responsibility for these 11 key activities. Before the campaign is underway, the leadership team must decide -- and write down in the campaign -- which person is responsible for what activities. What activity is the responsibility of a volunteer or a paid staff member? Will each activity be assigned to a different person or will one person handle multiple campaign activities? On smaller campaigns, people may fill multiple roles and volunteers may take on substantial responsibilities. But on larger campaigns, this is the general breakdown by job title. Campaign Manager The campaign manager is the CEO. He or she is responsible for all campaign activities, including management of the candidate, and making sure that daily operations and programs are completed on time and within the budget. On smaller campaigns, the campaign manager may play multiple roles: political strategist, fundraiser, media contact, and volunteer coordinator. But on larger campaigns, he or she oversees the campaign staff and consultants in their day-to-day work. Finance Director The Finance Director is responsible for the campaign's fundraising programs. He or she develops a fundraising plan and oversees the campaign's fundraising efforts through mail, online, and at in-person events. The Finance Chairman and Finance Committee support the Finance Director. The chairman is ideally a person with strong ties to the local community who can help the campaign reach beyond donors who have a direct relationship with the candidate. The Finance Committee is composed of similar people, whose networks can be tapped to raise funds for the campaign. Communications Director The Communications Director is responsible for the campaign's messaging and communication to internal groups (i.e. donors, volunteers, and supporters) and external groups (i.e. media). He or she is responsible for determining when, how, and in what terms the campaign's message is shared and spread. He or she also responds to inquiries, from the press, the community, or supporters, about the campaign. The Communications Director also is responsible for the prioritization of campaign issues. A campaign is always about the candidate's ideas and issues. The Communications Director helps the candidate determine the most important messages and the most effective way in which to deliver them. On larger campaigns, the Communications Director will work with a Press Secretary, who maintains regular contact with the media. Political Director The Political Director oversees a wide range of areas: voter targeting, outreach, and identification; coalitions; endorsements; and work with surrogates to speak on behalf of the campaign in the media. On larger campaigns, the Political Director will oversee a Field Director, who manages day-to-day voter identification and outreach efforts “in the field,” and a Volunteer Director, who recruits and deploys volunteers to support the campaign's efforts. Consultants Professional consultants may be hired to manage entire campaign activities (e.g. fundraising or research and polling) or to part of a campaign activity (e.g. producing radio or television ads). The role of consultants on the campaign should be clearly delineated in their contracts. In addition to these paid staff, campaigns rely heavily on volunteers – motivated by the candidate or the candidate's issues – to complete their day-to-day work. >

What will it take for conservatives to win in 2012? It won't be how right we are. It will be how hard we work in the 90-day countdown to Election Day.Today the Leadership Institute launches Voting Is Not Enough, a special project for campaign season 2012, that will arm activists like you with how-to, practical knowledge to use for your candidate or cause this fall.As part of Voting Is Not Enough, you'll receive:- weekly live webinars with expert LI faculty- writings from Morton Blackwell, the Institute's president- informational posts on campaign and activism topics- "quick tip" videos you can use right away Plus, the Leadership Institute and the Faith and Freedom Coalition will cosponsor Get-Out-The-Vote Workshops in 14 states, starting this week. The goal is to train more than 1,000 activists to host voter registration drives and get voters to the polls on Election Day. Will you be one of them? >

Morton Blackwell's piece, The Real Nature of Politics, is at the core of the Voting Is Not Enough project. As he explains, the winner in a political contest over time is determined by the number and the effectiveness of the activists and leaders on the respective sides. The mission of the Leadership Institute, and this project, increase the number and effectiveness of conservative activists. What I am about to share with you is probably the most important lesson you will learn at any time in your life about success in the public policy process. Conservatives did not understand the real nature of politics for many years and certainly did not begin to teach it systematically until the early 1970s. Many conservatives today haven't learned it yet. Please bear with me as I begin with the important historical background. I'll get to the key concepts soon enough. What was the greatest difference between conservatives who supported Barry Goldwater in 1964 and those who supported Ronald Reagan in 1980? Most people don't know the answer. The majority today aren't old enough to remember the 1964 presidential campaign, but Barry Goldwater's book, The Conscience of a Conservative, is still available and widely read. Fortunately, most people still remember Ronald Reagan and his conservative principles. Anyone who supported Goldwater in 1964 and Reagan in 1980 can tell you that there was no significant difference in philosophy between Barry Goldwater and Ronald Reagan. You can see this for yourself. If you read The Conscience of a Conservative, published in 1960, you will see that Barry Goldwater's positions on public policy issues then were very close to those of Ronald Reagan in 1980. I can tell you from my personal experiences in the 1964 Goldwater campaign and in the 1980 Reagan campaign that there was one great difference between the approach to politics of the Goldwater supporters and the Reagan supporters 16 years later. The difference was that we Goldwater supporters tended to believe that being right, in the sense of being correct, was sufficient to win. We firmly believed that if we could prove we were right, if we could logically demonstrate that our candidate was of higher character and that his policies would be better for our country, somehow victory would fall to our deserving hands like a ripe fruit off of a tree. That's not the real nature of politics. I call that misconception the Sir Galahad theory: "I will win because my heart is pure." Do you know what was the most used slogan of the Goldwater campaign? It was this: "In your heart, you know he's right." Unfortunately the real world doesn't work that way, as we who supported Goldwater found out when Lyndon Johnson trounced us. Johnson got 41 million votes and Goldwater got 27 million votes. To this day I'm convinced Barry Goldwater would have been a better President for the United States than Lyndon Johnson, but Lyndon Johnson won big. Some Goldwater conservatives were so shocked and disappointed that they dropped out of politics and were never seen again. But not all of the Goldwater people left. Many of us stayed involved. Lots of us travelled similar paths and wound up working together. In 1964, I had served as the youngest elected Goldwater Delegate to the Republican National Convention. The next year, 1965, I came to Washington to be executive director of the national College Republicans. Others with solid Goldwater pedigrees moved into the national scene at about the same time. A young Goldwater supporter named Richard Viguerie came to Washington in 1965 and created his direct mail firm. He soon became the nationally dominant consultant in political direct mail and is still a leader in that field today. Another notable young conservative, Ed Feulner, also came to Washington in 1965, to work for a think tank. Then he became a leading conservative congressional staffer. Now he is president of the massive and effective Heritage Foundation. Another young Goldwater supporter, Paul Weyrich, came to Washington the next year, in 1966, to serve as press secretary for a conservative U.S. Senator from Colorado. Weyrich soon became the key conservative expert on politics on Capitol Hill. He later became America's most successful organizer of conservative organizations and institutions, playing a key role for more than 40 years in founding important new groups. All of us had supported Goldwater, but none of us was prominent in his campaign. In fact, none us even knew each other until we got to the D.C. area and began to build our own national reputations as fighters in different ways for conservative principles. But in those days, our past support of the Goldwater campaign was a priceless credential among fellow conservatives. Lee Edwards, a friend of mine who served as Director of Information in the 1964 Goldwater campaign had founded in 1965 what was probably the D.C. area's only conservative public relations firm. Now Dr. Edwards, he has become the nation's foremost historian and biographer of the conservative movement. In May 1972, Edwards introduced me to Richard Viguerie. A week later Viguerie hired me away from the conservative think tank where I then worked in D.C. He said, "Morton, I want you to come help me build a conservative movement." Richard Viguerie meant what he said, and his words were music to my ears because building a conservative movement was exactly what I wanted to do. Soon, with my help as his political assistant, Richard began to gather frequently a small group of experienced, totally reliable conservatives who were serious about trying to figure out how to win for conservative principles. Included in our meetings were those I have named, including Lee Edwards, and others whom we believed shared our conservative principles and our determination eventually to win for those principles in government, politics, and the news media. We were tired of losing. We discussed what had worked well for the political left, why conservatives had lost so many political battles, and what conservatives might do to win in the future. It came down to this: What is the real nature of politics? Here was our first great conclusion: Being right in the sense of being correct is not sufficient to win. You don't win just because your heart is pure, even if you can prove logically that you are right. What, then, does determine victory? In our frequent meetings and discussions, we came to our second great conclusion: The winner in a political contest over time is determined by the number and the effectiveness of the activists and leaders on the respective sides. That fundamental understanding changed our thinking. It explains why the side that's right doesn't necessarily win. Next we considered the vital question of what determines the number and effectiveness of the activists and leaders on a given side. Clearly, numbers and effectiveness do not depend on which side is right. Our third great conclusion was: The number and effectiveness of the activists and leaders on a given side in a political contest is determined by the political technology used by that side. That explains a lot of political history, including why bad causes, like communism, attracted a lot of activists. The people on the political left used effective political technology. In contrast, most conservatives had relied on proving we are right. Political technology can be roughly divided into communication technology and organization technology, with no neat line of separation between communication and organization. Most political technology is philosophically neutral. Techniques which work for the left can work for conservatives. Techniques which work for Republicans can work for Democrats, and vice versa. Similar techniques can work whether a public policy battle is an election or a legislative battle over tax rates, the right to keep and bear arms, abortion, or any other issue. In the 1970s, when we made what were for us these discoveries about the real nature of politics, we saw this new understanding as a terrific insight which could lead to victory for conservative principles in the public policy process of government, politics, and the news media. But because most political technology is philosophically neutral, most people who are deeply committed philosophically tend to disdain to study or use political technology. Instinctively, people devoted to their political principles tend to think learning mere skills is beneath their dignity because techniques are philosophically neutral. Such people are, after all, thinking about and proving their wonderful, deeply held views on important public policy questions. Is abortion the murder of tiny babies? What must be done to stop the spread of worldwide communism? What must be done to keep big government from destroying economic liberty and prosperity? "They will take my gun only by prying it from my cold dead fingers. God made man, but Winchester made men equal!" Serious questions. Serious people can get very excited about issues and philosophic differences, but they instinctively tend to think poorly of the study or practice of philosophically neutral skills. Political technology is composed of a universe of specific techniques. Of course, not all political techniques are philosophically neutral. Terror is an evil technique used most commonly by the left. Communists famously and effectively use terror to grab power and keep it. But most political technology has no inherent philosophical content. How you design a piece of political literature, how you raise funds, how you organize a precinct, how you attract a crowd to a political event, how you communicate to a mass audience online -- those techniques can work for anybody. You may wonder now what I mean by techniques. Most of the most useful techniques don't involve complex computer programming. Let me use, for example, the techniques available for something as simple as a nametag. How often have you seen pre-printed nametags which begin, in big letters, with "HELLO, MY NAME IS"? That's a bad technique. The printed message is useless, and it takes space on the nametag which could be used for communication. How many times have you attended meetings where someone has thoughtfully printed nametags for everyone in advance, in letters about the size a typewriter would produce? That's a bad technique because it wastes space which be used for communication. How many times have you had to write your name on a nametag with a thin-line ballpoint pen? That's a bad technique because a name written by a wide-line, felt-tip pen is easier to read. Often people print or write names on nametags in all capital letters. That's a bad technique because capitalizing only the first letters makes the nametag easier to read. The name on a nametag should comfortably fill the entire space available. Where do you place a nametag? Most people instinctively place their nametags on their left shoulders. Wrong. The best place for your nametag is on your right shoulder, where people can most easily read it when you extend your right hand to greet them. Thousands of known techniques work. Very few techniques in politics are as complex as rocket science. Most are as simple as learning the types of print font which are easiest to read or what I have said about nametags. The right techniques can make you more effective in everything you work to achieve. Each good technique you use in politics makes it more likely that you will win. But many philosophically committed conservatives tend to believe that being right, in the sense of being correct, is sufficient to win. Those of us who began to meet in 1972 discovered the real nature of politics: The winner in a political contest over time is determined by the number and the effectiveness of the activists and leaders on the respective sides, and, The number and the effectiveness of the activists and leaders on a given side is determined by the political technology that side employs. We knew that many of our conservative allies thought otherwise and that we would have to persuade them differently. Here is how we convinced many of them. We shared with them our analysis of the real nature of politics, and then said, "If that is true, you owe it to your philosophy to study how to win. You owe it to your philosophy to study how to win. You have a moral obligation to learn how to win." If you allow your opposition to learn better how to organize and communicate than you do and they implement that technology, they will beat you no matter how right you are -- and you don't deserve to win. That is a persuasive argument. When you talk in terms of a moral obligation, you're talking in terms people can understand if they have a strong philosophical commitment. We began to have success teaching committed conservatives this, the real nature of politics, and it had a remarkable and sudden impact. New groups begin to spring up in a wide range of issue areas. A wide variety of specialized organizations: educational foundations, legal defense foundations, lobbying organizations, and political action committees. Conservatives began to study how to win. Existing conservative organizations also began to grow very rapidly. For example, in 1972, one of the biggest, most effective, most famous, most respected and even most feared organizations on the conservative side was the National Right to Work Committee. In 1972 they had 25,000 members, and they were thought of as really big stuff. Then they began to study and use communication and organization technology. They began to grow throughout the 1970s, from 25,000 members in 1972 to 1.7 million National Right to Work Committee members in 1979. Then they really were big and could affect policy in a major way. At first a handful of new conservative groups started. Then dozens. Then conservatives started hundreds of new national and local groups. Each new or newly large group contributed an increase in the number and the effectiveness of conservative activists and leaders. By 1980 conservatives had the political muscle across the country not only to nominate Ronald Reagan for President but to elect him. That wasn't the first time Reagan had run for President. I was a Reagan alternate Delegate in the presidential campaign of 1968, when he made his first, brief run for President. Again I was a Reagan alternate Delegate in 1976, when he ran against President Ford for the nomination and almost won. By 1980 the conservative movement had grown remarkably. Reagan won nomination convincingly and then won election. And I got to serve three years on the Reagan White House Staff. All of this is of central importance for you because the potential for growth of conservative political strength still exists. The rapid, spontaneous growth of grassroots conservative activity in 2009 and 2010 proves that. It turns out that the more groups you have and the greater the number of people you activate and teach how to be effective, the more power that you have to impact on the public policy process. I don't have to tell you how often Supreme Court decisions on liberal versus conservative issues are now decided on a five to four basis. The next Congress is likely to be closely divided between conservatives and the left, with many congressional elections decided by only a handful of votes. The next presidential election is likely to be very close. The margins of victory in the American public policy process may be smaller now than at any other time in American history. You can make a difference, now and in the future. The number of American conservative activists and leaders is certainly growing. To grow in effectiveness, they must study how to win. My Leadership Institute now offers 40 types of training schools in the public policy process. You can review those 40 types of schools at LeadershipInstitute.org. For the first time, political training for conservatives is available online, on demand, and free 24 hours a day. Other conservative organizations also offer worthwhile training you should consider. Nothing would be more disappointing politically than for conservatives to lose because of avoidable mistakes. So I urge you, remember the real nature of politics and the clinching argument which has revived the power of conservative principles in America: You owe it to your philosophy to study how to win. You have a moral obligation to learn how to win. Morton C. Blackwell is the president of the Leadership Institute. Having worked actively in politics for more than forty years, he has probably trained more political activists than any other conservative.>

The Lone Star State held its U.S. Senate Republican primary runoff election last week between Lt. Governor David Dewhurst and Tea Party favorite and Solicitor General Ted Cruz. Ted Cruz won the election by 14 points, and is “favored to win in November,” reported USA Today, “because Texas has not elected a Democrat to statewide office since 1994.” But the real story is how a first-time candidate for elected office could pull a Texas-sized upset against an elected official with support from Texas Governor Rick Perry and others. How did this liberty-loving Cuban-American Ted Cruz do it? “Social media was critically important to Ted's win,” 24-year-old Digital Strategist Vincent Harris, a Leadership Institute faculty member, said. “The Cruz campaign ran the most integrated statewide digital strategy in the history of American politics.” In January 2011, Ted Cruz announced his candidacy in a call with conservative bloggers. He then tweeted this announcement before holding a traditional press conference. On Facebook, Ted Cruz's 86,946 fans are double that of Lt. Gov. Dewhurst's 43,218 fans. And according to the Houston Chronicle, Ted Cruz “tweeted to his Twitter followers 5,117 times through runoff day, versus 597 for Dewhurst.” Vincent Harris, Ted Cruz's digital strategist, stayed busy managing his online presence. “There were constant meetings about online ads, the campaign's message, Ted's schedule, and figuring out ways to raise as much money online as we could to compete with our opponent's self-funded warchest,” Vincent told the Leadership Institute. “I spearheaded the online advertising, website, online fundraising, graphic design/creation, and worked with the campaign to write and produce web videos. It was an amazing opportunity to work with John Drogin, Jason Johnson, and the entire team.” Vincent, a native of Fairfax, Virginia—just miles from the Leadership Institute's headquarters in Arlington—skipped classes in high school sometimes to walk along Rep. Tom Davis (R—Va.) dressed as an elephant in parades and other gatherings. He was also chairman of the Statewide Virginia Teenage Republicans, for which he organized a statewide convention with guest speaker Pat Robertson. In May 2005, he started the blog TooConservative.com which quickly gained popularity—more than 60,000 unique web visitors a month—in part due to its live-blog chats with notable Virginia politicians. In May 2006, Vincent founded RightOfTexas, a conservative blog in Texas focusing on politics and elections throughout the state. At age 18, Vincent endorsed Mike Huckabee for president early in the game and scored an early interview with the Arkansas governor. Later, he received an online staffer job with the campaign; he urged them to start a Twitter account and Huckabee became the first of the GOP 2008 presidential candidates to do so, according to Campaigns and Elections. In 2009, Vincent graduated from Baylor University in Texas with a religion degree. Vincent ran the digital campaigns for the presidential races of Rick Perry and Newt Gingrich this cycle. He's also chief executive officer of Harris Media, whose clients have included: Governor Rick Scott, Governor Bob McDonnell, Governor Nikki Haley, Governor Rick Perry, Speaker Newt Gingrich, Governor Jan Brewer, and Senator John Cornyn. Vincent was also the new media director for the National Republican Senatorial Committee in 2009 and the Iowa online director for Governor Mike Huckabee in 2008. His digital skills have caught the eye of many. He received Campaigns and Elections' Youngest Rising Star of 2012 award and also received in 2012 two Pollie awards from the American Association of Political Consultants. “I want to continue to lead the party online toward embracing new media,” Vincent shared with LI. Vincent has taught as a faculty member at seven LI trainings, including: twice at the International Leadership Training Seminars, Comprehensive Internet Activism School, RightOnline 2008, twice at LI's Blogging Workshop, and Future Candidate School. “I volunteer at LI because I believe in the conservative movement,” Vincent said. “A limited government that lets people make their own decisions and keep their own hard earned salaries is important. I've loved trainings at the Leadership Institute and always find they keep me sharp and on my toes.” “The Leadership Institute was helpful because it allowed me to break out of my shell,” Vincent shared. “By giving trainings I was able to sharpen my skills as a digital strategist and just meet fantastic current and future leaders of the movement. It's a great networking opportunity!” Vincent is now working on his doctorate in government at the University of Texas at Austin. As Morton Blackwell, Leadership Institute president, says in his Laws of the Public Policy Process, “Political technology determines political success.” Please welcome Vincent Harris as LI's Spotlight of the Week. Ted Cruz's campaign was sprinkled with staff trained at the Leadership Institute. Watch for more spotlights on these individuals in weeks to come. LI offers training in 50 states and dozens of countries. Please go here to register for an already-scheduled training or contact LI to request training in your area. In fact, LI is hosting Campaigning in a Digital World training this Wednesday, August 8. Register here. The Leadership Institute is a 501 (c) 3 organization that does not endorse or oppose any candidate or legislation, and all programs are open to the public. To nominate a Leadership Institute graduate or faculty member to be featured as LI's spotlight of the week, please contact LI's External Affairs Officer Lauren Hart at LaurenHart@LeadershipInstitute.org.

Yesterday the Leadership Institute hosted more than 60 conservatives for the August Wednesday Wake-Up Club Breakfast with Mallory Factor, president of an independent merchant bank and financial relations consultancy firm and author of Shadowbosses: Government Unions Control America and Rob Taxpayers Blind.Mr. Factor, a longtime businessman and conservative activist reported, “On average, 60 to 70 percent of public sector employees are unionized.”He went on to say, “[The late] Albert Shanker, president of the United Federation of Teachers, was once quoted saying, ‘When schoolchildren start paying union dues, that's when I'll start representing the interests of schoolchildren.'” Mr. Factor said that unionized federal government employees are often paid – with taxpayer-funded money – to do union work, which could entail anything from union recruitment to campaigning for union-friendly candidates. “This union work includes an annual 23 million man hours and more than $1 billion in costs, not including benefits,” Mr. Factor told the audience. “Their ultimate goal is to unionize anyone that receives any government funding.”Praising the Leadership Institute, Mr. Factor said, “Teaching people how to win, which this Institution does, is what it will take to make us stronger.”Shadowbosses, set to release on August 21, has been praised by Sean Hannity, Michelle Malkin, and Steve Forbes as a must-read.Mr. Factor chaired the Economic Roundtable for the Chairman of the Joint Chiefs of Staff and led the 2009 Economic Summit for the U.S. House Republican Conference and Policy Committee. He served as a senior fellow from 2007 to 2011 for the House Republican Policy Committee. Mr. Factor was a member of the Board of Governors of the New York State Banking Department from 2001 to 2007 and from 1987 to 1988, he was a member of the Federal Savings and Loan Advisory Council for the Federal Home Loan Bank.He was chairman of the New York Public Asset Fund from 2002 to 2006 and vice chairman of Governor's Island Preservation and Education Corporation from 2006 to 2007. Mr. Factor is the founder and co-chair of The Monday Meeting, a nationally-recognized gathering of elected officials, journalists, business leaders, and conservative authors in New York City, and a similar gathering in Charleston, S.C. Previously, he served as chairman of the Free Enterprise Fund.LI's Wednesday Wake-Up Club Breakfast is held the first Wednesday of each month and is an excellent opportunity for LI friends to meet leading conservative speakers and hear their thoughts on current affairs over good food and fellowship with conservative friends. Annual memberships are available for just $100. Receive 12 breakfasts for the price of 10!September's speaker is the 13th and 21st U.S. Secretary of Defense Donald Rumsfeld. For more information, please go here. >

Winning isn't everything. True leadership is responsible governing. Illinois' Cook County Commissioner Dan Patlak, last week's Leadership Institute graduate of the week, leads his 19 staff to work as “taypayer advocates” for the 1.7 million people he represents. The Cook County Board of Review is a quasi-judicial board that helps respond to “taxpayer's grievances with their property tax assessment,” Brendan Seyring, a staffer for Commissioner Patlak, said. Twenty-eight-year-old Brendan is one of the Commissioner's 18 analysts who research property tax values and work with constituents as they make their appeal. (He's also a graduate of four LI trainings.) “I kind of do a lot of everything,” Brendan said. “If people overpay, I work on one of the processes to help people get their money back.” In 2011, Commissioner Patlak's office worked on 341,688 cases and 62 percent of these received some sort of relief on their property's value, saving the taxpayer money, Brendan told the Leadership Institute. “There is no filing fee. It doesn't cost a property owner anything to appeal but their time,” Brendan explained. “And the Board of Review never raises one's assessment.” So, what's there to lose? “I'm always trying to do more, and be more willing to help,” Brendan said. “We want taxpayers to have a fair and proper assessment.” For more information, please visit: http://CookCountyBoardofReview.com/ or www.ElectPatlak.com/ “A typical day is not very different from any other elected official's staff. We provide constituent services,” Brendan shared. “The only difference is we field appeal files and phone calls for several hundred thousand people a year. Even with this many people, we treat all appellants, from large corporations such as Boeing, to an individual homeowner with the same care and attention. You can say we create policy every day.” Staff in the commissioner's office typically works on the submitted files; attending hearings with the taxpayer; and attending outreach seminars to teach constituents how to appeal their assessments. The Commissioner's office hosts regular “outreach seminars” that teach people how to appeal their property assessment and how it can result in lower taxes. Brendan said that sometimes they have groups as large as 600 or 700 people at the outreach seminars and other times, they meet with a group of just three to four people. Regardless of the meeting size, the Commissioner's analyst staffers remain until all questions have been answered and the process of appealing is clear. Brendan's proud of several things. First, “I worked on what might be the first new farm in Cook County in decades,” Brendan said. “The farm was already a farm, but was not properly assessed. I helped him to get the proper assessment.” The property owner purchased former commercial stables, and is now repurposing it as an organic honey farm, thanks to the savings from the property assessment. A second highlight: Cook County has met the tax bill filing deadline of July 1 for the first time in 34 years, Brendan said. “For every month delayed, it costs the county millions of dollars,” Brendan said. “We are on time this year because of all the hard work and overtime.” Brendan said it's typical for commissioner office staff to put in 70 to 80-hour workweeks and work 10 to 12 or even 14 days in a row during appeals season. “We are very different than most government agencies,” Brendan chuckled. “I'm just a small part in the refund process for those who have overpaid their taxes,” Brendan said. “Commissioner Dan Patlak's leadership has made this office work effectively and for the taxpayer's needs.” Besides being an analyst on the Board of Review for Commissioner Patlak, Brendan is on the executive board of the Schaumburg Township Republican Organization, a civic organization comprised of community volunteers whose mission is to promote better governance through voter education and by supporting and electing candidates who believe in the Republican principles of limited government, individual liberty, and fiscal responsibility. He is the Schaumburg Township collector, a liaison to the Human Services Fund, and a Schaumburg Township precinct captain. He's also currently studying to be a Certified Illinois Assessing Officer (CIAO). Brendan received his bachelor's degree in American and Roman history from the University of Illinois in Champaign-Urbana. Brendan has taken several Leadership Institute trainings: Getting Out the Vote in 2012 with New Media in June 2012, Public Speaking Workshop in November 2011, the Advanced New Media Workshop: Campaigns in October 2011, and the Campaign Management School in October 2011. “I learned how to win from the Leadership Institute,” Brendan said. “For those unfamiliar with Chicago and Illinois, politics here is very unforgiving. LI taught me why some campaigns did very well and others did not. Many of the successful tactics Commissioner Patlak employed, I recognized from LI. The Leadership Institute was very good at providing both in-depth training and the big picture information of running a campaign. The anecdotes from the very experienced lecturers were great! If more people would attend LI, we could really put some wins together.” Brendan admitted, “I always had an interest in campaigns, but did not know how to learn more. I hoped to learn as much as I could volunteering for different causes. Commissioner Patlak then suggested LI's Campaign Management School, which I had never heard of. I did not really know there was such a thing, but I was very excited to go.” “I am now hoping to become more involved in campaigns and possibly pursue it as a career,” Brendan shared. “I believe this fall will be a time of great opportunity and excitement that would not have been possible had I not attended LI's Campaign Management School.” Commissioner Patlak said, “I have encouraged my staff as well as any other motivated people who want to win elections to attend the Leadership Institute.” Brendan reflected, “I would not have attended LI or have been as involved in the Conservative movement had it not been for Commissioner Patlak. He is developing the next group of conservative leaders.” Please welcome Brendan Seyring as LI's Graduate of the Week. “It is very important to have a staff that views the taxpayer not simply as an unlimited fund for government spending,” Brendan said. “It has not always been the case that a commissioner and his staff have been so concerned with the needs of the taxpayer.” Check out last week's “Chicago's Cook County Commissioner: Part One—About the Man,” to learn more about the Commissioner and his campaign win. To nominate a Leadership Institute graduate to be featured as LI's graduate of the week, please contact LI's External Affairs Officer Lauren Hart at LaurenHart@LeadershipInstitute.org. LI offers training in 50 states and dozens of countries. Please go here to register for an already-scheduled training or contact LI to request training in your area.

I have reached the inevitable point of no return at which everyone asks, “Are you ready for school?” and “How was your summer?” Both questions cause a flood of emotions for me.I am excited to go back to school, but I'm sad to leave this summer behind.From the sunny day in May when I packed my dorm room into my grandma's convertible, bought a suit at Brooks Brothers, and headed to DC, to living with 11 other interns in one house (think Real World: DC, minus the drama), I have had so many amazing experiences and opportunities.It has been humbling and crazy – a summer like no other. I traded sleep, exercise, and healthy eating to maximize my time in the nation's capital, where there is always an event waiting for an RSVP. There is no such thing as a free lunch, unless you're a DC intern. Just make sure you dress the part.Was it worth the sacrifice? Without a doubt, it was.So, what have I learned this summer?1. Someone is always watching you. So be good for goodness sake! The golden rule should be your guiding principle. Write it on your hand as a constant reminder...or, at least, keep it at the forefront of your mind.2. Step out of your comfort zone. Just like Bristol Palin on Dancing with the Stars, try something new in spite of any criticism you might receive. Haters gonna hate. To keep yourself grounded, you should have some consistencies in your life like breakfast, church, and calls to mom and dad, just to name a few. But you need to challenge yourself, too.3. Ask questions and listen to the answers. Be an active learner. I have learned a lot by just listening to my fellow interns and leaders within the conservative movement. Some of my views have changed, while others are now stronger.4. Be professional. Always carry business cards with you, and keep your resume updated to the gold standard – second only to the Bible and the Constitution. Also, keep in mind that you have an online resume. Use Facebook and Twitter appropriately.5. Dress for success. Get a fashion mentor. This could be a friend, your mom, or even GQ. It doesn't have to be expensive, either. Take your wardrobe in strides. Start with at least one nice suit and then piece the rest together through various consignment shops and occasional steals (and by that I mean really good buys).6. Stay connected and follow up. Keep in contact with friends and leaders you've met during your internship. You never know where they might end up! Possibly the most important question you can ask is, “How can I help you?” Conversely, Benjamin Franklin said, “If you want to make a friend, ask them for a favor.” Helping others and asking them to help you establishes strong connections.7. Surround yourself with people you admire. This includes the influences of the books you read, shows you watch, and music you listen to. Show me your friends, and I'll show you your future.Finally, in all of it, have fun, and don't be afraid to fail. You're an intern, so now is the time to make mistakes. But remember you're not just an intern. You're more than that! Act like it!Shameless plug: The Leadership Institute offers the best internship in Washington, D.C. I am now a walking example. I received free housing, established an instant network of conservatives, attended free LI trainings, got free books, and attended several conferences. I also met great conservative rockstars like Star Parker, James O'Keefe, Lila Rose, Michele Bachmann, Herman Cain, Rebecca Kleefisch, and many more! If you want to have an unforgettable experience, I highly recommend you apply for the LI intern program.>

Dan Patlak is a politico. He's held campaign posts from volunteer campaign manager for a state representative race to press secretary on a U.S. Senate campaign. He's even run for office himself. In 2010, Dan was elected as a Commissioner at the Cook County Board of Review in Illinois. He represents one-third of his county's population. Illinois' Cook County includes 946 square miles and represents 5.3 million people, making it the “second most populous county in the nation and the 19th largest government in the United States,” according to the Cook County, Illinois webpage. This county includes the City of Chicago and the suburban municipalities surrounding it. After the “Republican Revoluton” of 1994, Dan dreamed of moving to Washington, D.C. to work full time in politics for a newly elected Member of Congress. “After speaking to an old time friend who recommended the Leadership Institute and their Capitol Hill School, I boarded a plane to Washington in early December to take the class and hopefully secure employment with one of the legislators in DC,” Dan reflected. The training was held at a hotel, he said, because the Leadership Institute (LI) had yet to secure a building of its own. Not until September 18, 1996 did LI open the doors to its current Steven P.J. Wood Building in Arlington, Virginia. “I picked up some good tips about the legislative workforce,” Dan said, “and heard from a speaker who I was to make friends with at another LI class a year later. His name was Alex Mooney and he was a legislative correspondent for a congressman from Maryland.” In 1995, Dan joined Al Salvi's U.S. Senate campaign in Illinois as a volunteer. So, Dan came back for more LI training. This time he took LI's Campaign Leadership School, now renamed the Campaign Management School. “I hung out each night with a group of about seven people,” Dan remembered. “One was Alex Mooney who went on to unseat the moderate Maryland Senate Minority leader two years later at the age of 27. I am proud to say that I was the first person to make a financial contribution to Senator Mooney's campaign…Also in our group was 21-year-old Adam Mack from Maine who, a year later, was elected a state representative, also defeating a moderate Republican Party leader.” One month after Dan took LI's Campaign Leadership School, the Salvi campaign hired him on full time. “I was hired by the Salvi campaign to be the assistant press secretary,” Dan shared. “Following Salvi's primary win, I was promoted to press secretary. Unfortunately, Salvi lost the general election to Dick Durbin and I was not able to fulfill my desire to work in DC.” But, with each campaign experience, Dan learned more and applied LI lectures to the campaigns and causes of his choice. “Since taking the Campaign Leadership School, I have referred many times to the spiral notebook I filled with notes,” admitted Dan. “The lectures for that school covered the gamut from door-to-door canvassing to literature creation to polling and far beyond. The speakers were among the most expert conservatives in the country. He continued, “Over the years I have attended 10 Leadership Institute trainings, including the Future Candidate, Public Relations, Public Speaking, Grassroots Activist, Youth Leadership, Capitol Hill Writing, Get-Out-the-Vote, and Internet schools.” At the Future Candidate School, Dan befriended a fellow attendee in his twenties from Texas. His name was Rick Green, Dan said, and this 20-something went on to win a spot in the Texas House of Representatives, where he represented Central Texas' District 45 from 1999 to 2003. Later, Rick went on to run for the Texas Supreme Court. Dan regularly encourages folks to attend LI training. He told the Leadership Institute that Tom Morrison began attending LI courses through his recommendation. Tom was elected as a Illinois state representative in November 2010, and won by 24 percentage points. “LI classes are great for what they teach and if you attend a multi-day class they are just as valuable for the opportunity to meet fellow conservatives from around the United States who possess a desire to build a better America,” Dan said. Please welcome Dan Patlak as LI's Graduate of the Week. He may just one day find himself working in Washington, fulfilling a long-time dream. You just never know where LI graduates will go. “As the highest ranking Republican Cook County office holder, I have encouraged my staff as well as any other motivated people who want to win elections to attend the Leadership Institute,” Dan said. Tune in next week for “Chicago's Cook County Commissioner: Part Two—An Inside Look within the Office,” in which we will highlight one of his staffers and give you a peek into the inner workings within a commissioner's office. To nominate a Leadership Institute graduate to be featured as LI's graduate of the week, please contact LI's External Affairs Officer Lauren Hart at LaurenHart@LeadershipInstitute.org. LI offers training in 50 states and dozens of countries. Please go here to register for an already-scheduled training or contact LI to request training in your area.

We've all heard it: "D.C. is built on networking!" But my first few [forced] networking events in D.C. made for painful memories. Thrown into a room full of people I had never met, I would work up the courage to talk to one or two attendees before making a beeline for the refreshments and enjoying a few moments of refuge. When you hear the word "networking," is this the type of experience that comes to mind?Attending events in D.C. and meeting new people is important (and, trust me, it gets easier!), but there's more to building a network than simply adding new people to it. Your network is already larger than you think.I was once asked to write down the names of 100 people whom I consider to be part of my network. Daunting! But after struggling for a while, I was given categories to consider: family, friends, classmates, teachers, co-workers, teammates, Happy Hour crew … and the list went on. Thinking of 100 people was suddenly quite easy. When looking for a job in D.C., it's common to only think of the "big fish," the people with clout who you assume will help you get where you want to go. I meet with many jobseekers who want to work on specific Capitol Hill committees, but they aren't sure how to get there due to their lack of Hill experience and connections. They do have valid concerns, but many of them also make the common mistake of underestimating their networks. Think about your ideal position and work backward. To continue with the Congressional committee example, learn who serves on the committee and figure out their connections. Then follow the chain backward until you find a personal connection of your own. Approach that person about making an introduction for you to the next person up the chain. It's true that D.C. is built on networking, but you may already have a stronger network than you realize. Don't let it go to waste. >

The Leadership institute recently hosted more than 90 students at the July Youth Leadership School. The Institute's flagship training brought many young conservatives together from all over the U.S.Dan Quiggle, a faculty member at the Leadership Institute (LI) and a business entrepreneur by trade, kicked the training off with the “The Real Nature of Politics” lecture, which confronts a popular misconception of conservative activists. “You're not going to win just because your heart is pure,” Dan stated. “The fact is that political technology determines political success.”The lecture titled “Prepare for Leadership” was taught by Peggy Grande, a ten-year staff member to President Ronald Reagan during his post-presidency years. During the lecture, she discussed developing a written plan, adhering to a timeline, initial organizational activities, youth campaign headquarters, and senior campaign relations were regarded in great depth. In her opening remarks Peggy gave some advice to the many aspiring politicos in the room.“I didn't come from a political family,” Peggy said. “The way that I achieved my goals was by being constantly available and always arriving earlier and staying later than anyone else. If you make that effort to stand out through excellence you will find success.”Matt Kneece, LI's director of the Youth Leadership School (YLS) department and a veteran of six campaigns, also delivered several lectures throughout the weekend.Many students found his talk on building a conservative organization especially insightful. Megan Lowe, a rising senior and founder of Young Women for America at Cedarville University in Ohio, said: “I learned so many new ways to get my message out – whether with balloon posters, flash flyers, or special projects. These are methods that can be easily done on campus.”LI YLS Intern Pamela Meyerhofer delivered her first lecture on how to effectively organize high schools for the conservative cause. “High schoolers are different than college students,” Pamela said. “In order to be successful in utilizing them, you must understand the differences.”In fact, one of the young high school attendees hopes to use her training to organize the youth vote at her at school.Martha Crosby, a soon-to-be U.S. citizen and passionate conservative leader generously described her experience:“After taking the YLS, I am devoted in becoming an exemplary leader for my university and as a U.S. citizen. With the knowledge I have absorbed, I know I can get there.” >