Dear John,

In the wake of our campaign, staff was faced with the choice of endorsing a candidate (which would have allowed us to pay off our debt, given the circumstances), or to remain neutral. In a group meeting, the team decided that the values of being able to hold leadership accountable outweighed the monetary compensation they were due. That voluntary team decision was key because it meant the team knew fundraising post-campaign would be a challenge, even as it allowed us to independently build on our campaign’s platform and message.

The pending lawsuit and allegations are unsettling, specifically because of the group decision that was made, and the dozens of documented correspondence sent regularly to staff once I began to unravel the post-campaign challenges, no longer inhibited by my limited lens as a candidate. Those correspondences included information about fundraising efforts, fundraising events, information about our financials, requests for meetings, and more, over the last few months. In addition to that consistent correspondence, we hosted 2 fundraisers, held several online fundraisers, sent out regular newsletters with fundraising appeals, and small and large dollar donation asks continue to this day.  

We had also begun making partial payments to campaign staff as a show of good faith.

Campaign debts are not unusual. Running on a people-centered, grassroots campaign is an even bigger challenge when it comes to funding. But it also requires being fully honest and transparent about the nature of the grievances and trying one’s best to get all parties involved to be accountable. That’s what I’ve done so far and that is what I will continue to do. 

More positive updates on what’s ahead coming soon!

Amara Enyia

Want to change how you receive these emails?
You can update your preferences or unsubscribe from this list.