Here is how mass surveillance works: our government writes an interpretation of our laws arguing mass surveillance is legal. They then make their interpretation of the law, and their activity under it, a state secret. In order to hold our government accountable to its own laws, citizens need evidence. By making these a state secret, citizens can't legally obtain evidence. This effectively makes holding the government accountable to its own laws illegal.
Historically, when made public, the government's interpretations of our laws on surveillance have been found wrong. Some people call this a "narrow interpretation of the law", we call it breaking the law.
Government officials should not be able to make their illegal acts a state secret. The act of classifying something illegal should itself be illegal. Obtaining evidence that was unlawfully classified should be decriminialized. Hiding "narrow interpretations" of the law away from public scrutiny should be illegal.
Our government possesses an incredible amount of power. We have a system of checks and balances that ensure we can trust our neighbors with that power when they go into government. Our neighbors in government have ignored the responsibility we have trusted them with: enforcing checks and balances. We must end this. Government officials must abide by the government's own laws and our representatives should be advancing that goal.
Our representatives are individuals but both political parties attempt to brand themselves as binary choices, either you vote Republican or Democrat. The two parties paper over the individuality of our representatives, removing much of our choice when it comes time for you to vote. Amplifying the chilling effects this has on our democracy, both parties participate in voter suppression.
A majority of America uses first-past-the-post voting. For voters, this approach to elections requires weighing your vote against the expected results. If you don't cast your vote for the candidate you believe has a high chance of winning, you might as well not vote. This is called a "throw away vote", voting for a candidate widely considered to not have a chance. This is a form of voter suppression and works to entrench the current political parties. The RNC and DNC have the funds, history, brand awareness, and are actually on the ballots making them a likely outcome in every election; under this model every vote for a third party is high risk. First-past-the-post voting is also notoriously susceptible to gerrymandering, which we see both parties participate in.
Our elected officials need to work towards dismantling voter suppression. Breaking the two party duopoly doesn't necessarily mean having more than two parties, but it does mean reducing the options both parties have for manipulating the results of elections to keep themselves in power.
Every Two Years operates as a 527 non-profit: a non-profit founded primarily to influence the result of an election. Since we do not coordinate with candidates, we do not have restrictions on how much money we raise or spend on elections. This is known colloquially as a "Super PAC". While, as a 527, we have to disclose our donors, we can accept donations from a 501(c)(4) which does not have to disclose its donors. We shouldn't be able to do this.
To rephrase the previous paragraph: our tax and election laws allow you to legally launder unlimited amounts of political money and use that to influence an election. Open a 527 and a 501(c)(4), pass donations through the 501(c)(4) on their way through to the 527 and you can accept unlimited anonymous donations and spend them to influence elections.
Our courts maintain a very narrow interpretation of candidates and Super PACs "coordinating": political candidates can endorse Super PACs, can directly ask their supporters donate to a Super PAC, and can personally thank each donor.
Our representatives need to close these loopholes. We shouldn't be able to accept massive anonymous donations to inflencue something as important as a political election.