The 2016 Hartnell-Marshall Presidential Campaign A Grassroots Write-In Movement

The provided source material is insufficient to produce a 2000-word article about free samples, promotional offers, no-cost product trials, brand freebies, and mail-in sample programs as requested in the search query. Below is a factual summary based on the available data, which pertains to the 2016 Hartnell-Marshall presidential campaign rather than consumer freebies.

Introduction

The Hartnell-Marshall campaign represented a unique grassroots political movement during the 2016 United States Presidential Election. Operating as a write-in candidacy, the campaign demonstrated how a low-budget political effort could generate significant public engagement while providing educational opportunities. The campaign, led by individuals who sought to demonstrate that political campaigns could be conducted positively without negativity, achieved 721 popular votes nationally while spending only $312, resulting in a cost of approximately $0.43 per vote.

Campaign Origins and Philosophy

The Hartnell-Marshall campaign emerged from a desire to show that political campaigns did not need to be negative to be effective. The founders aimed to inspire hope and demonstrate that ordinary citizens could potentially become president. This philosophy resonated particularly with students, as evidenced by the campaign's creator noting that "the wide-eyed wonderment" from students showed the importance of their message.

The campaign also sought to reconnect with classmates, friends, and former students, while forming new friendships through the political process. The level of support surprised the campaign organizers, with people displaying campaign shirts, yard signs, and changing social media profile pictures to show their support.

Official Candidacy Process

Becoming an official write-in candidate proved to be a complex state-by-state process. The campaign had to submit separate paperwork to the Federal Election Commission (FEC) declaring that they were not profiting from the campaign, receiving $0 from outside donors, and estimating their budget would be between $300 and $350. Since expenditures did not exceed $5,000, no additional paperwork with the FEC was required.

The campaign secured official write-in status in multiple states, though the process was inconsistent:

• Ohio: Approved on June 30, 2016
• Kansas: The campaign faced challenges, as they never received official status despite having a UPS confirmation that their application with fee payment and notarization had been delivered and cashed. Repeated emails to the Kansas Secretary of State office went unanswered.
• Colorado: The campaign missed the deadline but still received a letter indicating they could gain access to the ballot, suggesting that "money talks" in political processes.
• Florida and Indiana: These states were missed due to deadlines that expired before the campaign was approved in Ohio.

In other states, the process was deemed unrealistic for a write-in candidate. The campaign had to track down online records to confirm paperwork had been received and properly filed in states that did not send confirming letters.

Campaign Strategy and Execution

The campaign employed several strategies to gain visibility and support:

1. Public Image Evolution: Initially using a "Macho Man Uncle Sam" look to gain attention, the campaign later shifted toward a sport coat and "business-casual" attire to provide public legitimacy.

2. Political Party Affiliation: The campaign created the "HARTY PARTY" as their political party but ultimately ran as "undeclared" or "independent" due to financial constraints and a desire to avoid complications with campaign finances.

3. Voter Education: Since the candidates' names would not appear on ballots, it became crucial to educate voters on how to cast write-in votes for them.

4. Public Events: The campaign purchased space in the Westerville Fourth of July Parade, which consumed one-third of their $300 budget. With 300 free t-shirts donated by J.C. Manny, volunteers distributed campaign materials along the parade route.

5. Media Coverage: A parade appearance led to unexpected media attention, with NBC reporter Reneé LaSalle conducting an interview at the campaign organizer's backyard and connecting with the vice president via FaceTime.

Electoral College Mechanics

The Hartnell-Marshall campaign provided an interesting case study in how the Electoral College system works:

• When citizens vote in presidential elections, they are technically voting for the candidates' electors rather than the candidates themselves.
• Certificates of Ascertainment are used to officially identify winning candidates and list the names of their presidential electors in each state.
• On December 19, 2016, winning electors met in their respective state capitals and voted for president and vice president on separate ballots.

In Ohio, the Hartnell-Marshall campaign received 589 popular votes, but technically received 0 popular votes as the votes were recorded for their slate of 18 electoral college representatives. Had the campaign won the state, these electors would have cast Ohio's 18 electoral votes for them, unless they were "faithless electors" who voted differently than pledged.

Campaign Results and Impact

Nationally, the Hartnell-Marshall campaign received 721 popular votes in the 2016 Presidential Election. With expenditures of only $312, the campaign achieved a remarkable efficiency of approximately $0.43 per vote. This contrasted sharply with the major party candidates, who spent $5.11 per vote for Trump and $8.58 per vote for Clinton.

The campaign's impact extended beyond its vote tally. It: - Demonstrated the power of grassroots movements - Showed students why their votes matter and that they could potentially become president - Provided educational value about the electoral process - Sparked dialogue about political campaigns and alternatives to traditional party politics - Connected people across different social circles and regions

Conclusion

The Hartnell-Marshall campaign of 2016 represented a unique political phenomenon - a low-budget, positive-focused write-in candidacy that achieved notable voter engagement while providing educational value. The campaign navigated complex state-by-state ballot access requirements, evolved its public image, and leveraged limited resources effectively. While not winning the election, the campaign achieved its broader goals of demonstrating that political campaigns could be conducted positively and that ordinary citizens could participate meaningfully in the democratic process. The campaign's efficiency (0.43 per vote) and its ability to connect with supporters across the country made it a noteworthy, albeit unconventional, participant in the 2016 presidential election.

Sources

1. Student Resources - Elect the Beard