Pros
The pay is decent, but it doesn't make it worth it.
Cons
The Theory of Change: There doesn’t seem to be a real theory of change at RepresentUs. When I started this role, I was excited about the ideas laid out on the website -- that after a groundswell of support throughout states passing anti-corruption legislation, we could see national change. I didn’t hear a word about that once I started working there. Instead, decision making seems to be only centered around what will bring RepresentUs the most followers or get the biggest press hits or the most exciting celebrity endorsements. There is talk about the theory of change being rooted in movement building, but there is no evidence of investment in or belief in movement building. Most decision making seems more driven by funders -- like when I was asked to create content for campaigns with a “quantity over quality” mindset, because that’s what the funders wanted. But I think the most troubling issue at RepresentUs, which I know has been laid out in exit memos from other staff, is that decision-making is not driven by values, nor is it truly driven by strategy. Instead, it seems aimed only it how to be most appealing to white people, even if means happily sharing videos from people like Ben Shapiro. There’s nothing wrong with wanting to talk to conservative or moderate voters, but to frame that as a “beyond-partisanship” lens is misleading. They fail to understand that being anti-racist and opting not to share content from people with a record as hate is not the same as being leftist or even progressive. Instead, staff members (particularly staff of color, trans staff, and women) had to fight for our basic acknowledgements of how issues in our country, from police brutality to gerrymandering, are directly connected to issues of anti-corruption. And even those most basic acknowledgements were framed as a risk -- that we might alienate Trump voters or folks who don’t want to see anti-racist statements coming from RepresentUs. Ultimately, that choice, to prize racist supporters over marginalized communities is an abdication of responsibility and a failure of leadership. No real commitment to DEI initiatives / equitable hiring practices: Past staffers of color have written about this issue, and it never felt like their concerns were taken seriously. Leadership felt it wasn't “safe to try” DEI proposals put forward by a working group, showing that despite these concerns being around for a long time, there is resistance to real change that would make RepresentUs a more welcoming place. Leadership: The founder seem to be the main drivers when it comes to staff being consistently pulled away from long term planning and campaigns that build movement to focus on short term, shiny projects and campaigns that don’t seem to have any real connection to the RepresentUs theory of change. A consulting group that was brought in to help with DEI work fired the organization because the founders were unwilling to change. That convinced me that as long as the founders have as much decision-making and strategic input as they do, change will be very difficult at RepUs. There is, very clearly, no real commitment to lasting change. That has also been evident in the many times staff (again, staff of color and women) have pushed back against decisions, only to find that their concerns are not really heard, or at least not meaningful enough to be taken into consideration. Misogyny: It's a boy's club, and I had problematic interactions with men in leadership positions multiple times, as did almost every woman I spoke with at RepUs.
