The best $5,800 I’ve ever donated (to pandemic prevention).

This is probably as good a place as any to mention that whatever people say about this race could very easily get picked up by local media and affect it. As a general principle, if you have an unintuitive idea for how to help Carrick's candidacy, it might be an occasion to keep it to yourself, or discuss it privately. Generally, here, on Twitter, and everywhere, thinking twice before posting about this topic would be a reasonable policy.

I don't know Carrick very well, but I will be pretty straightforward that this post, in particular in the combination with the top comment by Ryan Carey gives me a really quite bad vibe. It seems obvious to me that anyone saying anything bad right now about Carrick would be pretty severely socially punished by various community leaders, and I expected the community leadership to avoid saying so many effusively positive things in a context where it's really hard for people to provide counterevidence, especially when it comes with an ask for substantial career shifts and funding. 

I've seen many people receive genuine references in the EA community, many of them quite positive, but they usually are expressed substantially more measured and careful than this post. This post reads to me like a marketing piece that I do not trust, and that I expect to exaggerate at many points (like, did Carrick really potentially save "thousands of lives"? An assertion thrown around widely in the world, but one that is very rarely true, and one that I also doubt is true in this case, by the usual EA standards of evidence). 

I don't know Carrick, and the little that I've seen seemed positive and reasonable, and I think he is very likely going to be a vastly better congress person than people currently elected from the perspective of my values and principles, but I still feel like that isn't sufficient reason to break many norms we have about exaggerating and being honest in our assessments of others, and being grounded and measured in the references and endorsements we give to others (in particular in combination with threats of negative consequences to anyone who provides counterevidence). 

I understand that posts like this, and their surrounding social dynamics, are a norm in political races, and that I expect people participating in these races to feel like they are necessary. I haven't thought through the tradeoffs here in much detail, but I am pretty confident posts like this have a cost on the quality of the discourse in EA and the forum. That cost might be worth it, though I do think it is a substantial cost and a major reason for why I am quite hesitant for many people in the EA community to get too involved with politics (though my real expectation is that we probably could just be honest and straightforward, and this wouldn't actually hurt candidates, and we could just get the best of both worlds, but I do know that many people disagree with me on this). 

Edit: Trying to operationalize what I would like to see instead of posts like this, I feel like I would like to have discourse about political candidates that allows readers of the forum to straightforwardly distinguish between four different cases for a potential candidate: 

• This candidate is really good and competent, by both the the lights of the EA community, and by the lights of the broader world, as measured by their own standards
• This candidate is good and competent by the lights of the EA community, but it's not clear whether they are particularly good by the lights of the rest of the world
• This candidate seems good and competent by the lights of the general political world, but is not a good candidate from an EA perspective
• This candidate is not a good fit for office, either from the perspective of the EA community, or by the lights of the rest of the world

I feel like this post kind of doesn't really provide me with evidence to distinguish between these four cases. Like, I am not sure whether I would actually see evidence that looks very different from this for a candidate that isn't actually a very good fit for political office at all. Or I would see evidence that's different if a candidate looks good from an EA perspective, but not good from a broader lights perspective. 

To be clear, I do think there is value in clear and unambiguous endorsements, and there is real evidence communicated here from ASB. But I feel like the way the evidence is communicated actually makes each individual piece less trustworthy, and I can't shake this deep underlying current of the piece trying to persuade me instead of trying to inform me. A core part of this is definitely that I expect negative evidence about Carrick to be quite systematically filtered out, but another component is that a number of considerations that seem relatively irrelevant from an EA perspective (like Carrick's childhood background) are given at the same time as pretty relevant statements (like the positive working experience that ASB had), in a way that makes me think I should treat both of them as the same. 

Like, as an example, I feel like Carrick's childhood background in this primarily serves the purpose of making Carrick emotionally sympathetic, without actually being any real bayesian evidence on whether he is a good or a bad fit for political office. I do think in an important sense, his background matters, but not because it should be compelling directly to me, but because I should expect others to find it compelling, and so assign higher chances to his political success, but signposting that kind of distinction feels very important to me when discussing political candidates.

[disclaimer: acting director of CSER, but writing in personal capacity]. I'd also like to add my strongest endorsement of Carrick - as ASB says, a rare and remarkable combination of intellectual brilliance, drive, and tremendous compassion. It was a privilege to work with him at Oxford for a few years. It would be  wonderful to see more people like Carrick succeeding in politics; I believe it would make for a better world.

I donated $5800.

I donated $5800 and recommend this highly to people looking for impactful individual donations. 

I had hoped that someone with Carrick's background in biosecurity would eventually make it to national office, but I hadn't expected there to be a serious chance of it this year!

I appreciate your spreading the word about this campaign, but I'm not comfortable with the EA Forum being heavily used for political campaigning. Per this policy, "posts advocating for or against a specific political candidate" should be in the Personal Blog category.

I don't know him, but I really want Carrick in Congress. I think donating to his campaign is a not-unreasonable thing to do as a hits-based-giving-opportunity, since it would be great for him to be in the House...

...but I don't think most readers of this post would appreciate how unlikely he is to win. People who would be great politicians often aren't great candidates. Unless there's relevant private information (e.g., he's expecting endorsements from major Democrats), it's quite unlikely that Carrick—whose name isn't known in the district and who doesn't have government experience—will get more votes in the Democratic primary than the candidates with name recognition, state government experience, and endorsements from many state government officials. (And if he doesn't win, marginal performance in a failed House primary isn't very helpful to future pursuits.) I wish I knew how Carrick plans to win: I wish we lived in the world where you could win elections just by dazzling voters with your policy chops, but we don't.

I'm an elections junkie. I wish I could vote for Carrick, and I really hope he wins. But I would not feel comfortable recommending others donate or volunteer until his campaign gives us reason to believe that he has a real chance.

Edit, 2.5 days later. I still think Carrick's chances are pretty low and that some people in these comments are excessively optimistic due to misweighting the relevant factors (which is ok--not everyone needs to be knowledgeable about elections--but skews the sentiment in these comments). And I still have meta-level concerns about how we decide to pursue certain interventions (which I plan to share after the primary). But I now think that donating is a highly effective thing to do in expectation (although on balance I would rather give to the Long-Term Future Fund), because it seems quite high-value for Carrick to win.

I am still finding myself on the fence about about this. It feels like a very exciting opportunity and worth the money, but there is a nagging part of me that says don't trust that emotional reaction. What really matters is whether it's better in expectation than saving a life or two. If anyone has done or is willing to do that calculation (or parts of it), I'd love to  read it.

There are a lot of comments regarding his chances of winning, but less about what he could (or would be likely) to realistically accomplish if he were to gain office. This seems important. 

I'd love to read an outside view take on what the range of accomplishments could be for a new representative without much political experience or party support.

I came in with a negative predisposition because I really don't like politics and particularly US politics as a cause area. But nothing you are saying seems crazy, particularly given your endorsement and personal experience. 

Historically, there have been ~24 Republicans vs ~19 Democrats as senators (and  1 independent) from Oregon, so partisan affiliation doesn't seem that important. "$1 million for an additional 2% chance of winning" seems a bit high on the probability side, but I'm not actually familiar with the  money flows of US elections. Checking the money spent in past Oregon elections, it seems plausible. The upside of a few billions/tens of billions spent more effectively also seems about right, but the long tail could also be very positive.

My guess is that it seems very likely he will lose, but it seems worth it anyways; of 10-20 bets like this I sort of expect that a few will succeed. Recommendation: Defer to the author, donate. Optionally, I would also like to see a very liquid prediction market on his chances of success, and I estimate that would cost $5-$10k.

Is there a place we can publicly track donations?

Some research on how foreign nationals can get involved (or not) in campaigns that will hopefully provide some clarity here: 

1. A foreign national can volunteer as long as they are not part of the campaign's decision-making apparatus. There are useful official sources. To start, there is the official Federal Election Commission guidance online. Here they outline that a foreign national can do anything as a volunteer as long as they are not part of the campaign's decision-making apparatus. So for example, a foreign national can express their opinion online about who to vote and who to donate for. Like, I don't have an arrangement with Carrick's campaign. This is explicitly permitted. This is below:

Page 44: "Foreign national as campaign volunteer Although foreign nationals may not make contributions or expenditures in connection with any federal, state, or local election (see Chapter 5, Section 1), an individual who is a foreign national may participate in campaign activities as an uncompensated volunteer. In doing so, the volunteer must be careful not to participate in the decision-making process of the campaign. The Act and Commission regulations specifically prohibit foreign nationals from participating in the decisions of any person involving electionrelated activity. 52 U.S.C. §30121; 110.20(i). See AO 2004-26 (Weller). For example, a foreign national volunteer may attend committee events and campaign strategy meetings but may not be involved in the management of the committee. 110.20(i); see AOs 2014-20 (Make Your Laws PAC), 2007-22 (Hurysz), 2004-26 (Weller) and 1987-25 (Otaola)."

2. More specifically, foreign nationals can help with fundraising.

Also, from the Congressional Research Service's write-up on the FEC and its advisory opinions:

Page 3: "FEC Advisory Opinions provide some guidance. Traditional volunteer activities, such as “lit drops, door to door canvassing, handing out literature at transit stations, telephone banking, and get out the vote activities” plainly fall within the exemption and may be provided by foreign nationals, who are similarly free to attend campaign rallies and events and give speeches endorsing their chosen candidate or cause. The FEC has also permitted foreign nationals to design a political committee’s website code, logos, and trademarks without compensation.... But a later Advisory Opinion specifically allowed foreign nationals to participate in fundraising activity, including in the direct solicitation of funds.... Thus, the volunteer exemption for foreign nationals.... what seems to matter is whether the foreign national participates in a political organization’s “decision-making process,” which includes “decisions concerning the making of contributions, donations, expenditures, or disbursements in connection with elections” as well as “decisions concerning the administration of a political committee.”"

I've also looked all over the other statues and can't find anything prohibiting speech supporting political candidates. It would be really weird if they prohibited this type of speech. America has a very strong free speech tradition that protects even most of the political speech illegal in Europe. Also, in First Amendment jurisprudence there is a hierarchy of protected speech, with political speech at the top. America not allowing people to express an opinion would be... well, really un-American. America's protection is so strong (weird?) that it even protects the rights of corporations to donate money to campaigns as free speech (Citizens United).

3. However, donation swapping may be too much of a "substantial assistance"

"Furthermore, it is a violation of federal law to knowingly provide substantial assistance in the making, acceptance or receipt of contributions or donations in connection with federal, state or local elections, to a political party committee or for the purchase or construction of an office building by a state or local party committee." (Source)

So I would personally hold off from donation swapping. But other forms of speech are accepted.

I would also be interested in hearing more thoughts/analysis on this. I can see two potential downsides:

1. EA loses (more) political neutrality and loses/fails to attract valuable members of the community
2. EA attracts more public scrutiny/becomes more controversial, resulting in negative publicity and worse public perception - EG the reason EA mostly doesn't seek publicity in mainstream journalism.

A quick search doesn't bring up much on the forum about risks/benefits of EA becoming more political/fielding political candidates. I am considering posting a "Should EA field political candidates?" question to generate some discussion. 

Does anyone know if such a thing already exists? Or see any downsides to posting it?

This is a really interesting effort and I'm excited to see where it goes. However, as Zach wrote, this seems like a fairly long shot effort. It's a crowded primary field and the other candidates have money and experience in Oregon state politics. I'd be very interested in reading a more detailed writeup on the state of the race, the strengths and weaknesses of the other candidates, and Flynn's plan for a path to victory. I'm not currently convinced that donating is a worthwhile use of money, but a good enough plan might change my mind. 

Coverage of this post from The Hill on April 24th:  

Many of Flynn’s donors are involved in an online forum called Effective Altruism, a group that analyzes how best to spend money on philanthropic efforts. Their conclusion, according to some of the posts backing Flynn, has been that spending a few million on a congressional race could result in billions in spending on pandemic preparedness by the federal government.

Flynn is “the first person to ever run for US congress on a platform of preventing future pandemics,” wrote one user, Andrew Snyder-Beattie, who called his donation to Flynn “the best $5,800 I’ve ever donated (to pandemic prevention).” 

“Nobody in congress has made pandemic preparedness a ‘core issue,’” wrote Snyder-Beattie, whose online profiles say he leads Open Philanthropy’s work on biosecurity and pandemic preparedness. “Carrick will make this a priority, and has committed to devoting a full time staff member to focus on pandemic preparedness issues.” 

Sounds like good coverage! Though some of the local media is strongly against Carrick (1, 2, 3). 

Separately, Oregon Guy deserves better from us. He's clearly an Oregon voter who is surprised to see millions of dollars pouring in to support a candidate he's never heard of.  Downvoting him to hell will not open his ears to the virtues of our preferred candidate. It would be great if someone had the time and expertise to give Oregon Guy a warm welcome and a sincere recommendation for Carrick. 

I made an Elicit question about whether Carrick Flynn would win the primary. I'd like to get a better sense of how likely this is before donating.

Edit: I decided to donate $2,900.

Related:

• Will Carrick Flynn win the Democratic primary for Oregon's 6th District? | Manifold Markets
• Will Carrick Flynn win the general election for Oregon's 6th District? | Manifold Markets

Is this only available to US citizens?

Can we not perpetuate the idea that some vegans are 'asshole-like' just by avoiding eating animals/animal-products? I understand some vegans are less open to discussing their beliefs but I hate the idea that vegans are by default assholes as opposed to omnivores. A substantial amount of EAs are vegans and this phrasing really concerns me

Ok, another piece came out today, in a little bigger venue than the WW:

https://www.washingtonpost.com/politics/2022/04/26/trailer-pandemic-planner-crypto-billionaire-bunch-angry-democrats/

Metaculus question:

https://www.metaculus.com/questions/9700/carrick-flynn-to-win-or-6-democratic-primary/

This post is as good a place for a Carrick open thread as any, so:

Carrick recently got $1.37M in ad support from Protect Our Future, Sam Bankman-Fried's PAC (source). This seems good; Carrick's campaign has relatively high marginal expected value per dollar.

(But money can't really buy US House elections, and crypto-billionaire-PACs come off as icky no matter how friendly SBF is (and earned media matters a lot more than ads, and it's possible that voters just hear the crypto-billionaire-PAC part), and I hope this wasn't a big part of Carrick's plan: I commented to a friend a while ago that I don't see how Carrick can win, but he apparently thinks he can win, so he likely has information I don't, but I really hope it's not just expecting money from SBF's PAC since money doesn't do a ton in House elections.)

My expectation is still heavily for (rival candidate) Salinas, unfortunately.

https://www.wweek.com/news/state/2022/04/24/cryptocurrency-backed-democratic-congressional-candidate-carrick-flynn-leads-race-opposing-campaign-poll-found/

Summary: I am aware there are grassroots efforts from groups of individuals in effective altruism to support Carrick Flynn that exist independently of his campaign, or at least not officially affiliated with it. It's not evident in what way(s) this post may or may not be affiliated with Flynn's campaign. Yet I became aware of concerns among others in EA about how communications from active campaign supporters seem hasty and ambiguous. I present my similar experience below to inform further discussion.

I noticed this post when it was initially published a couple months ago. I didn't comment at the time because I was already aware of Carrick Flynn's campaign and the rationale for why others in effective altruism favoured supporting the campaign, financially and otherwise. I am only commenting now as I became aware from another post some concerns from some in effective altruism about the public communication of others supporting the campaign. I will present an experience I had with one of Flynn's supporters in EA who contacted me as it may be relevant.

I received an invitation to participate in an effort of generating internet memes in support of Flynn's campaign (as I am someone known to be willing to make popular memes in support of various efforts in effective altruism). I am not aware that this or other individuals they're working with in support of Flynn's campaign are officially involved. I suspect not. Rather, I'm aware efforts like this are independent and grassroots from a genuine support for Flynn's campaign in EA. 

 I sent a message to the one who invited me (I will not disclose their name at this time) and said I'm not comfortable making memes until I could vet Flynn as a candidate and the policies he is running on. They assured me Flynn was running on solid policies but I said I'd check anyway.  I agreed after I checked the campaign website.

The encounter was strange because there was encouragement and enthusiasm to support the campaign without information provided other than random personal testimony lacking in details. This may be one example (among others) for discussion of how those in support of a political candidate can communicate with others in EA better in the future.

He cares for animals too, and he and his wife are vegan (and not in an asshole-like way).

:-\ 

I recognize this comment may not be received well here, but I think things like this are quite bad for EA to support -- there are very substantial political skew issues in the movement already, and running political candidates as a EA intervention seems like another step down a road I think the movement needs to quickly depart.

Oregon news media are reporting that far from limiting contributions, Carrick Flynn is raking in dough from SBF of FTX, whom Flynn claims to not know. Also it appears that Flynn has no experience as an elected office holder, which did not work out well with the previous U.S. President. I predict that Oregonians will not take kindly to campaign contributions originating from a site whose commentors don't know whether or not the political office sought is in the United States.