Mayday Anti-PAC On Its Second Round of Funding

wonkavader (605434) writes 'Lawrence Lessig's MAYDAY.US Super PAC to end all Super PACs (and more) is now on its second round of funding. The PAC has been reported on here before, but now the numbers are bigger. They hit their $1 million first goal easily, but now they aim to get another $5 million in the same time period. Lessig says that he's arranged for matching, again. It seems like the goals will be even higher in 2016: "For 2014, our goal is to raise $12 million and use it to make fundamental reform the key issue in five congressional races. And we'll apply what we learn then to 2016."'

Comments

interesting

[thaylin]

We are going to get money out of politics by spending money.. I support the goal, but it just seems to shift where the money is coming from. The idea may fail if those who get in dont actually wanna lose that money, so put up a fake fight to change it.

Re:interesting

[Anonymous Coward]

It won't get money out of politics. If this group manages to accomplish everything they propose, we'll just go back to the old way of unlimited donation options for unions, limited or no donations options for anyone else.

Since there is a distinct effort to hide any actual details about what this PAC supports, here's some information on the founder. He's not a caricature of a political philosophy, but the timings and his biography make it pretty clear what he's trying to do.

Re:interesting

[thaylin]

Took me a few minutes to find out what they support, http://reform.to/#/reforms.

Re:interesting

[Anonymous Coward]

we'll just go back to the old way of unlimited donation options for unions, limited or no donations options for anyone else

I don't remember a time in the history of unions where it was ever this way. We are talking about the U.S. right? If you have a reference that gives more detail on that it'd be appreciated.

Re: interesting

[Anonymous Coward]

Here is an alternative, too anyone interested:

http://www.wolf-pac.com/petition

Re:interesting

[Electricity Likes Me]

Naturally he means it's totally unfair that a union, with hundreds of thousands of members, can tell all those members that they think it would be really great to donate to party X.

And then all those members can go and donate up to the individual maximum, and tend to do so because they actually like their union.

And it's totally unfair that the CEO of the company they all work for, can't use the profits of their labor, to unilaterally decide to give an unlimited amount of money from the company's coffers to the opposing party, and call it a business expense, that also just so happens to align to his personal interests as well.

I mean, how is that democracy? When the masses of people can popularly choose to support a politician and not be completely overridden by individual capital interests?

Re:interesting

[Anonymous Coward]

We are going to get money out of politics by spending money.. I support the goal, but it just seems to shift where the money is coming from. The idea may fail if those who get in dont actually wanna lose that money, so put up a fake fight to change it.

It's called "fighting fire with fire."

Same basic idea as copyleft.

Hack the system to work against itself.

Lessig proves, once again, his genius.

Re:interesting

[thoromyr]

You know, I think you are on to something there. if that is the end goal then it must be stopped. The founding fathers were anti-democracy http://www.dailykos.com/story/... http://www.godlikeproductions.... http://www.thecommentfactory.c... and we, too, should be against the tyranny of the masses and promote the enlightened government by and for the elite. To this end it is imperative that the general public be kept uneducated and in the dark -- and above all, disempowered.

Re:interesting

[gstoddart]

So, instead of the tyranny of the masses, you're advocating the tyranny of the wealthy?

Because that works out so much better.

Re:interesting

[LordLimecat]

Naturally he means it's totally unfair that a union, with hundreds of thousands of members, can tell all those members that they think it would be really great to donate to party X.

And then all those members can go and donate up to the individual maximum, and tend to do so because they actually like their union.

Sort of like how the "Big Evil Companies(TM)" spend money on "advertising" which expresses "opinion" which unfairly brainwashes unwilling, hive-minded thralls into voting for a candidate that they really didnt want.

Re:interesting

[NoImNotNineVolt]

If you don't already know who Larry Lessig is, you're obviously new here.

I support MAYDAY-PAC and I support WOLF-PAC. If you're tired of elections being bought, you should too.

Re:interesting

[Anonymous Coward]

So, instead of the tyranny of the masses, you're advocating the tyranny of the wealthy?

Because that works out so much better.

It positively boggles my mind that you could take your parent comment seriously.

Re:interesting

[thoromyr]

and here I thought the tongue was so firmly planted in cheek, and in the context of a response to a sarcastic post, and with the absurd links, that -- ah well...

Re:interesting

[Archangel Michael]

Money isn't the problem, it is simply a tool. Accumulated power is the problem. Money exposes and is a symptom of the problem, not the problem itself. I don't care about money in politics, I care about power. As long as power accumulates power, the system will become more dysfunctional.

The solution to power accumulation by sending power back to the people themselves. The solution is to take power and responsibility and put it back on the people, not the politicians. However too many people are willing to trade Liberty for Security, and we are seeing that this results in gaining us neither Liberty nor Security.

It is hard for power to accumulate power if we are inoculated against power accumulation. Politicians without power would not gain any money to wield to gain more power.

Re:interesting

[Archangel Michael]

Democracy is inherently problematic, and subject to hysteria mob rule. Two Wolves and a sheep deciding what's for dinner. Remember, Hitler was elected by popular support.

Tyranny arises when the "group" has more power and more rights than the individual. It is able to take from one to give to the group. Our society has long passed the line towards tyranny, and that is the problem. The group has more meaning and power than the individual. Thus the rise of the PACs and SuperPacs and all the other forms of Group Politics.

Want to fix the problem, fix the group politics. Only Citizens can donate only to candidates they can actually vote for. Otherwise they can form a group and run their own campaigns. That way, unions have to run their own campaigns for candidates, directly, as would the Koch Brothers and Soros would be prohibited (being a convicted felon) of donating to anyone.

This would drive the politics back locally, and away from accumulated power at the Federal and State levels. Problem is, this is inherently anti (D) and (R) proposal, and party politics in general.

Re:interesting

[Anonymous Coward]

So, instead of the tyranny of the masses, you're advocating the tyranny of the wealthy?

Better to be ruled by the smartest people in the room than by the dumbest. They wouldn't be wealthy if they weren't smart, farsighted people with plans for the betterment of society. Right?

Philosopher kings, and all that.

Re:interesting

[Anonymous Coward]

Only Citizens can donate

Sounds fair. After all. to the corporate Citizens, you're merely Customers.

Re:interesting

[ColdWetDog]

The newer version of 'Hanlons' Razor' - never ascribe to sarcasm that which could, possibly, somehow be twisted into being a real complaint.

Re:interesting

[Anonymous Coward]

And it's all well and good but misses all the lobbyist shills that the Big Corps send in all the time unless we can get the "chosen ones" to commit to ignoring lobbies.

Re:interesting

[Anonymous Coward]

Better to be ruled by the smartest people in the room than by the dumbest. They wouldn't be wealthy if they weren't smart, farsighted people with plans for the betterment of society. Right?

Except that becoming wealthy can often occur through nearsighted people who harm society--the financial crisis. Beyond that, being smart in one area says nothing about being smart in another.

Philosopher kings, and all that.

Like Bush and Obama.

PS - Like a lot of these posts, it's hard to tell just how sarcastic you're being and about what. But the overall problem in all of these discussions is precisely that "tyranny" is a subjective thing and few people want to be ruled in ways they don't want to be ruled which arrives at just as much through "the masses" as "the wealthy" given just how fickle people and money are towards some philosophical, ideological, or pragmatic end. No man is an island, though, so we can't be king of our own castle....until we all have robot slaves and accept the ethics of having sentient robots being treated horrible to sate the cruelty of man.

Re:interesting

[JWW]

Looking at reforms, I don't see much that will do anything.

If they succeed in getting the money out of politics, we will still be faced with incumbents having a disproportionate amount of power in staying in office.

For me to root for the Mayday PAC, they must include implementing term limits on congress as one of their goals. If we don't get that, their "getting money out of politics" will solve nothing. We'll still end up with ancient geezers who have been in office forever writing crappy law about copyrights and patents because they know shit about technology.

Re:interesting

[stenvar]

and we, too, should be against the tyranny of the masses and promote the enlightened government by and for the elite.

Those in government automatically form an "elite" no matter who they are; that's the nature of government and power. I prefer that elite not to be a professional class of politicians, who use government as a way to substitute for having a real job and enrich themselves and their buddies at the tax payer's expense.

Re:interesting

[JWW]

Unions don't tell their members to personally donate to politicians, they take their members money and give it to the politicians, regardless of what the members want.

Hey wait!!! That's exactly what you accused the CEO of doing.

To be fair, it is completely in the CEO's rights to ask employees to donate their own money to candidates.

The point here is that it would be the employees choice in either case.

You compared apples to oranges and then just stated that oranges are evil.

Re:interesting

[Anonymous Coward]

Where limits have been implemented by legislation, such as in Canada, corporate *and* organizational donations are simply banned, including unions. You can only make personal donations, and those are limited in amounts per year/party/candidate.

Yes, a solution that drastic would obviously run afoul of the constitution in the US, as demonstrated in several court cases that blew open this whole PAC mess in the first place. Maybe it's time to emend the constitution to make campaign finances an exception.

Re:interesting

[WillAdams]

Agreed.

I think it'd be a reasonable start to limit political contributions to:

  - no amount larger than $100 (make this a multiple of the current minimum wage so that the law doesn't need to be up-dated)
  - must be done as a check or money order written out by hand
  - must arrive in an envelope w/ no other funds (though as many pages of letter as the sender deems fit).

And/or, let's repeal the 17th amendment and go back to having state legislatures electing Senators --- but put in some checks and balances that the voters' will needs to be followed.

Re:interesting

[Anonymous Coward]

Dear sucker for Faux News:

      A couple years ago, I actually DID the research, including calling the IRS so that I could be sure of what I was seeing: "unlimited doations from unions"... according to the IRS, the ENTIRE WORTH of ALL "labor organizations" (some are not unions) in the US, *including* their halls, and pensions, and salaries, etc, was about $28B. That INCLUDES the real estate values.

      What's Apple's CASH RESERVES - $60B+? What are the Koch bros annual incomes? Or the Waltons of Walmart? Since the Republican corporatists have worked for the last 25 years to destroy unions, most billionaires look at them and laugh, and YOU believe in an oligarchy, bought and paid for by billionaires? Why? Do you really think, in real life, you're going to be rich?

      Excuse me while I laugh.

                      mark

Re:interesting

[Anonymous Coward]

And that's why the government of the United States is not a democracy. It's a Constitutional Republic.

Re:interesting

[Anonymous Coward]

You are not alone. He, nor anyone else does either, except in the fantasyland in their heads.

Re:interesting

[Anonymous Coward]

they are... they're all... orangy and stuff...

MUST BE EVIL.

Re:interesting

[Anonymous Coward]

You obviously haven't met many extremely wealthy people. The vast, vast majority of them inherited their wealth, and no next to nothing about anything.

Re:interesting

[amicusNYCL]

The Anti-Corruption Act would go a long way towards helping. Lobbying is the major way that corporations influence legislation, and it needs to be completely stopped. It needs to be criminalized.

they must include implementing term limits on congress

I completely agree, that is long overdue. We have people currently in Congress who have been there for 40 or 50 years and have become millionaires because of it. That is not public service, that is a career. That needs to end also, there needs to be a strict limit of years of service covering both branches of Congress. If you've served 20 years in Congress, you are not eligible to get elected again. All the way back to the beginning, George Washington refused to run for a third term. A few others ran, but no one succeeded until FDR. After his death, the 22nd Amendment made the 2 term limit permanent instead of tradition. Term limits for Congress are long, long overdue.

The difficult thing about implementing any of this, whether it is banning lobbying or establishing term limits or banning corporate donations or whatever needs to happen in order to help, is that we are relying on Congress to limit themselves. Since the obvious goal for many of them is to remain in power, that's clearly an uphill battle.

I'm not waiting for a perfect solution. The Mayday PAC is a good start and I want to (and have) shown support. If it fails, and someone else decides to step up and take the leadership role, I'll support them too. If you're going to sit there and wait for a perfect solution then, well, you'll die before that happens. Many, many people want to see change, what we need is a good leader.

Re:interesting

[tomhath]

Take a look at this.

Re:interesting

[Anonymous Coward]

Good luck convincing Congress to vote themselves out of a job.

Re:interesting

[Anonymous Coward]

If you don't already know who Larry Lessig is, you're obviously new here.

I support MAYDAY-PAC and I support WOLF-PAC. If you're tired of elections being bought, you should too.

Why do you support the "publicly finance" of elections ("publicly finance all elections in our country")???
http://www.wolf-pac.com/the_plan

You propose to take my tax dollars to give to politicians to convince me to vote for them so they can take more of my tax dollars?

Why do I need more robocalls that circumvent 'do not call' efforts?

Why do I need more subsidized junk mail?

Why do I need to pay for more commercials to skip? (and is it theft if I paid for that commercial to begin with?)

There are problems in this country, but a plan to take more tax dollars by force is not something I would support.

Keep in mind their reform will GUT the first amendment. All political speech will get routed through the government. The inch you think you're giving will soon be a mile.

Re:interesting

[NoImNotNineVolt]

Why do you support the "publicly finance" of elections ("publicly finance all elections in our country")???

Because I believe elections that can be bought fundamentally undermine the stated goals of a democratic society.

You propose to take my tax dollars to give to politicians to convince me to vote for them so they can take more of my tax dollars?

Yes.

Why do I need more robocalls that circumvent 'do not call' efforts?

That's a loaded question. I don't know, when are you going to stop beating your wife?

Why do I need more subsidized junk mail?

Ditto.

Why do I need to pay for more commercials to skip? (and is it theft if I paid for that commercial to begin with?)

And again.

There are problems in this country, but a plan to take more tax dollars by force is not something I would support.

Indeed, you're entitled to such a stance. I'm not sure what this has to do with WOLF-PAC, though. If you believe their goal can best be described as "to take more tax dollars by force" then you haven't quite managed to understand them.

Keep in mind their reform will GUT the first amendment. All political speech will get routed through the government. The inch you think you're giving will soon be a mile.

You're entitled to your opinion. Some of us believe the first amendment has already been gutted, along with many of the others, and that it's better to take action now than to regret our apathy later. Also, please explain how rescinding corporate personhood will impact, let alone "GUT", the first amendment.

Re:interesting

[Atzanteol]

"Getting money our of politics" is the first step that needs to be taken before any other reforms have a realistic chance of succeeding.

This is not an end - it's a beginning.

Re:interesting

[Anonymous Coward]

Also, please explain how rescinding corporate personhood will impact, let alone "GUT", the first amendment.

I didn't make that point. I have no problem with rescinding every last corporate charter. You're the one proposing an amendment below that only solidifies the government's hold on America.

Also, you ought to at least read the FUCKING amendment you support:

28th Amendment
Posted by Aaron Wysocki 1175pc on October 19, 2011 Flag

"Corporations are not people. They have none of the Constitutional rights of human beings. Corporations are not allowed to give money to any politician, directly or indirectly. No politician can raise over $100 from any person or entity. All elections must be publicly financed."

It will not rescind corporate personhood. I would. It will not. It would not rescind corporate charters (what I wouldn't mind getting rid of). The amendment directly impacts PEOPLE:

$100 from any person [adjusted for inflation, why didn't they use silver or gold as a standard hmmmmmm...]
All elections must be publicly financed.

In particulare, because this is a constitutional amendment, the first amendment will be recast in the shadow of the 28th (proposed).

Note that you do DICK about corporations. Note that you propose government financing its own elections without losing any power or restoring the amendments lost or disregarded. Bad idea, man.

Re:interesting

[Anonymous Coward]

Actually, I should have phrased my post better. It does technically rescind "personhood", but not corporate charters. The personhood is a relatively minor interpretation at the edges of the issue.

Why doesn't Wolf-Pac support freeing the EM spectrum to the states and the people? Why not a large citizen/anything goes band? You would keep the MSM owned by the MIC. You think they care if tax dollars get funnelled to them directly?

Re:interesting

[NoImNotNineVolt]

Let me clarify. Wolf PAC is an American political action committee formed with the goal of "ending corporate personhood and publicly financing all elections in our country", to include the restriction of large monetary donations to political candidates, parties, and groups.

That being said, the quote you post is not the text of the propopsed amendment. I know that because there is no proposed amendment. We're not at that stage yet, with only a single state's legislature voting in favor of a constitutional convention, so far.

You reveal your lunacy by admitting that you have no problem rescinding every last corporate charter. Corporations are essential in an economy as large as the one we have today. You argue for throwing out the baby but keeping the bathwater. The problem today isn't the existence of corporations, it's the unbridled political power they wield. Indeed, I do "DICK" about corporations, and instead focus on limiting the corrupting influence they brandish. Of course, with the extreme disparity in wealth distribution we see today, some individuals control such vast sums of money that their personal wealth is on par with that of massive corporations. These people also wield an inequitable share of political influence in our country, and therefore these campaign contribution limits should rightfully be extended to individuals as well.

In the end, many people agree that elections should not be bought. The solution, in our eyes, is to outlaw the purchase of elections. Not to outlaw corporations, or to return to a gold standard, but simply to outlaw the purchase of elections. That's what WOLF-PAC seeks to accomplish. If you disagree with this notion, and feel that it is in our country's best interest to continue to allow the purchase of elections, that's fine. You're entitled to your beliefs. However, a large segment of society does not share your views, and we're making ourselves heard through WOLF-PAC.

In particulare, because this is a constitutional amendment, the first amendment will be recast in the shadow of the 28th (proposed).

Why the first amendment? Why not the 2nd? or 3rd? or 27th? What makes the first amendment so special here? Is it because the SCOTUS wrongly decided that money equals speech? You believe that a 28th amendment that limits campaign contributions would necessarily allow the government to abridge the freedom of non-monetary speech as well? What is your reasoning there?

Re:interesting

[NoImNotNineVolt]

Actually, I should have phrased my post better. It does technically rescind "personhood", but not corporate charters. The personhood is a relatively minor interpretation at the edges of the issue.

That's where we disagree. WOLF-PAC is not some fringe group trying to abolish the corporation. WOLF-PAC is a single-issue grass-roots effort to undo the damage done by recent SCOTUS rulings. Corporate personhood is the very core of the issue.

Why doesn't Wolf-Pac support freeing the EM spectrum to the states and the people? Why not a large citizen/anything goes band? You would keep the MSM owned by the MIC. You think they care if tax dollars get funnelled to them directly?

Because those issues have nothing to do with elected political office being up for sale to the highest bidder (or very little to do with it, at best). The strength of WOLF-PAC is in focusing on the task at hand and not getting bogged down with everyone else's pet issues. First, elections must be fixed. Then, everything else can be fixed through free and fair elections.

Re:interesting

[Anonymous Coward]

That being said, the quote you post is not the text of the propopsed amendment. I know that because there is no proposed amendment. We're not at that stage yet, with only a single state's legislature voting in favor of a constitutional convention, so far.

That was the proposed amendment. It even has a URL name so it isn't just a random blog post on that site:

"Corporations are not people. They have none of the Constitutional rights of human beings. Corporations are not allowed to give money to any politician, directly or indirectly. No politician can raise over $100 from any person or entity. All elections must be publicly financed."

That you suggest a completely different amendement will be pushed ('we have to send our money before we see it' eh?), it no way supports your support of this BS organization.

Re:interesting

[Anonymous Coward]

That's where we disagree. WOLF-PAC is not some fringe group trying to abolish the corporation. WOLF-PAC is a single-issue grass-roots effort to undo the damage done by recent SCOTUS rulings. Corporate personhood is the very core of the issue.

Then why do they twice propose publicly financing all campaigns and mandating that it be such via the constitution. That is TWO ISSUES. You have strayed far from a piddling ruling that would change little either way the supremes ruled.

Your organization will support the policies of the board whomever that, whatever they believe.

The internet has made communication and grass roots activity cheaper than ever. So you propose sending billions to the MSM coffers and dead-tree publishers of America. WTFG!

Captcha: TAXPAYER
damn right - I'll pay close to half a million this tax year

Re:interesting

[NoImNotNineVolt]

"*Note: The finished legislation will be worded differently and have to account for inflation, etc. This is simply to point the legislators in the right direction and make sure the final amendment accomplishes the goals we have outlined here."

From the URL you linked to. Reading comprehension for the win.

If you actually thought that was the verbatim text of the legislation, you must not read legislation very often. It needs to pass through the legalese encoder several times before it's even sponsored.

Re:interesting

[NoImNotNineVolt]

The single issue is getting money out of politics. Simply abolishing corporate personhood (in the context of campaign contributions) would effectively outlaw campaigning, as corporate funds are what pay for the overwhelming majority of political campaigns today. Since the goal is not to get rid of democratic elections, but merely to remove the corporate influence, it is thereby necessary to secure an alternate unbiased source of campaign financing. Public financing meets these requirements. Think, AC. Think.

Instead of being bitter about having to pay your share of taxes, you should be gloating over how much wealth you're withholding from the masses wallowing in poverty. There's always a silver lining, you greedy bastard.

Re:interesting

[kwbauer]

The legalese that surrounds the actual amendment may look ugly and all, but all amendments so far have been pretty straightforward in their wording and the quoted text is no more or less complex than those examples so why should anyone think that it will need any further work?

Re:interesting

[kwbauer]

Yup, let's limit the ability of people to publish pamphlets to spread their message in the modern way and let's also limit the ability of people to pool resources to do so. That is so in keeping with the ideals of those who risked their lives to found this country. I love the irony of making it impossible (illegal) to do what some of the Founding Fathers did at the risk of their lives. At least we are only talking about taking away money or liberty for doing so this time instead of taking away life.

Re:interesting

[Hentai]

Actually, there's a term for that: It's called "Poe's Law".

Re:interesting

[Anonymous Coward]

'Woosh' is his super power.

Re:interesting

[shutdown -p now]

A smart guy (even if his policies were rather disagreeable to many) once said:

"The Capitalists will sell us the rope with which we will hang them."

It was true then. It's still true now.

Re:interesting

[shutdown -p now]

Well, there are people who seriously espouse such views.

Re:interesting

[dave420]

It's both. Republic and democracy are not mutually exclusive. Why do people have such difficulty with this? It's not hard. Democracy = people vote. Republic = a country without a dynastic leader.

Re:interesting

[NoImNotNineVolt]

I will need further work because the people proposing it explicitly state that the finished legislation will be worded differently.

Re:interesting

[amicusNYCL]

Don't worry, there are 2 ways to get a constitutional amendment. One way is through Congress. The other way is through an article V convention of the states. There's a very specific reason why the framers of the constitution allowed a way to make new amendments without going through Congress.

Re:interesting

[Sciath]

Smarts and wealth don't necessarily go hand in hand. As previously mentioned by others, much of the wealth in the world is inherited. The Constitution architects overall recognized that even back in the 18th century. Most of them were in favor of inheritance taxes because they believed wealth should be earned not passed on from one generation to another. Also, I know from personal experience that even "earnings" don't always realistically reflect intelligence. For a short time I worked for the state unemployment office. One day this guy walks in to get his first unemployment check which he had to sign for. He made an "X" on the form and asked me to witness his X. He was getting the maximum anyone was getting on UC. So I thought, what kind of job this guy had when he worked and what were his yearly wages. Reviewing his paperwork I discovered the guy was a bulldozer driver and made $150K/year. WTF! The guy couldn't read or write but was making more dough than anyone I had ever met prior to that. Now you might assert that %150K is not what you'd consider as income of the "wealthy" and I might agree to a certain degree. But the point remains that one doesn't have to be smart or well dedicated to make a considerable amount of money, far more than the average American. And that was 30 years ago.

Re:interesting

[Sciath]

One should make clear distinctions between hired civil servants (or government if you prefer) and those elected (or Selected as Al Sharpton would say). A vast majority of "guvment" employees are committed to public service and receive reasonable compensation. It's the higher-up bureaucrats who have political ambitions and the politicians and their sycophants (appointees) that are the largest cohort that corrupts government. Not counting all the loose and corrupt money from lobbyists of course.

Re:interesting

[Sciath]

False dichotomy. An "employer" possess the ability to hire and fire even oftentimes when a union is present in the workforce. Very few unions have that kind of workplace power. Thus, an employer can exercise undue influence in asking employees to contribute to candidates or parties. Secondly, unions are all "non-profit" organizations that are legally restricted from utilizing normal union dues for political purposes. Unions can request their individual members contribute to candidates, parties or causes. However, those extra contributions must be held in non-tax exempt and separate accounts. And unions cannot demand their members pay more than their normal dues. Employers can by threat of job loss even though it's easy for an employer to manufacture other reasons for firing someone which are (like age discrimination) hard to disprove.

Re:interesting

[stenvar]

The idea that the problems with government are due to corruption or ill intent is a fantasy promoted by progressives that can be fixed by just selecting better people (by which they mean themselves).

In reality, most people in government have good intentions are are not blatantly corrupt, whether they are low-level civil servants or higher-up bureaucrats with political ambitions. The problem is intrinsic to governmental structures, and you can't fix it other than by keeping government generally small.

Re:interesting

[Anonymous Coward]

Or in video format
http://www.ted.com/talks/lawrence_lessig_we_the_people_and_the_republic_we_must_reclaim

silly middle class reformists

[For a Free Internet]

This is a bourgeois dictatorship.

Step in the right direction

[areusche]

I've always been curious if it was possible for our system to eventually work itself out without the need for a bloody revolution. There has been so much malinvestment lately at the hands of entrenched political groups. I would be thrilled to see the US fix itself through its own system. My pessimism says otherwise though, but who knows.

Re:Step in the right direction

[stenvar]

I've always been curious if it was possible for our system to eventually work itself out without the need for a bloody revolution.

Sure, countries transition from free societies to welfare states or socialism all the time; I have no doubt we can accomplish the same thing. It's easy: people just vote in ever bigger benefits and public spending.

The sh*t hits the fan when the money runs out and totalitarians get elected based on empty promises to fix things. We still have a ways to fall before we get there.

Re:Step in the right direction

[whistlingtony]

I think one of the biggest problems with America, besides most of it's people not giving a shit, is that it thinks it's the only country in the world. There are plenty of countries who are what you would consider "socialist", although they all laugh at the term, and they're doing just fine.

Countries keep going. Empires rise and fall. America will fall because it's an empire, and once it does, it can get back to the business of being a country, and we'll all be better off.

Look outside the US. Yours is not the only system in the world.

Re:Step in the right direction

[Anonymous Coward]

is that it thinks it's the only country in the world

Bullshit. If that were true we'd be completely isolationist. We interact with the rest of the world, just not on your terms. Currently, we don't have to. Eventually, we will have to.

Look outside the US. Yours is not the only system in the world.

Show me a system that's doing well, and don't you dare point out a nation like Norway that props up its socialism with oil money, or Germany, who is basically raping the rest of the EU nations as a major exporter, and don't leave out nations like Belgium and Ireland, both socialistic and completely fucked long term.

Re:Step in the right direction

[sgt_doom]

If anyone is counting on son of wealth, and misdirection specialist, who has spent much of his adult life attending affairs held by the most neocon of neocon outfits, the Federalist Society, guess again.

Lessig's the dood the bring out to coopt everything. Your pessimism is well founded!

Re:Step in the right direction

[Sabriel]

Australia?

Re:Step in the right direction

[stenvar]

I think one of the biggest problems with America, besides most of it's people not giving a shit, is that it thinks it's the only country in the world. There are plenty of countries who are what you would consider "socialist", although they all laugh at the term, and they're doing just fine.

Having spent lots of time (one can't call it "living") in real socialist countries and also some of those "wealthy" European nations and other European ex-colonies, I can tell from first hand experience: the residents of those countries are wealthy, uneducated nincompoops, who know nothing about the world, socialism, or the US. That probably includes you.

Look outside the US. Yours is not the only system in the world.

You should take that to heart: the European welfare state is not the only system in the world, and it's broken.

Re:Step in the right direction

[Sciath]

Realistically American wages have not kept pace with inflation and even stagnated. From 1997 to 2007 the minimum wage was a mere $5.15 and it wasn't until 2009 the current MW went to 7.25. However it's not necessarily the wage rate that reflects the health of an economic system. There are many other factors to consider. Crime rates (crime rates are directly related to poverty), education (American education system ranks 14th in reading, 17th in science and 25th in math compared to 34 other OECD nations), economic opportunity and income disparity, domestic investment, trade deficits, etc. And by all measures the contemporary capitalist system is failing miserably in the U.S. And please don't insult everyone's intelligence claiming the American worker is stupid or lazy. American productivity has doubled in the past 20 years while incomes have shrank. Capitalism without oversight (including wage regulations, occupational safety, interstate commerce, etc.) coupled with dishonesty, greed, narcissism and complacency only breeds inexcusable disparities in wealth. A system like that will ultimately collapse under it's own self-interest. Western capitalism concentrates only on the accumulation of wealth without any consideration for it's social consequences. It certainly is not the panacea self-interested capitalists like to espouse. Don't get this wrong, capitalism CAN be a mechanism for good so long as the participants recognize they don't live on a private island. Society is "people" and studies have shown that people will only tolerate a certain degree of inequality and sense of being treated unfairly before rebellion (of some sort or some effectual degree) occurs. This trait is even present in capuchin monkeys that have been studied.

Reduce the importance of money in politics...

[Anonymous Coward]

by asking money??

I know... fight fire with fire, but 1m isn't going to be enough ;)

How does it work?

[rossdee]

How does an anti-pac work? Do they pay the TV stations not to run the ads from the other super-pacs?

Re:How does it work?

[Anonymous Coward]

From what I understand, their goal as a SuperPAC is to pour money into congressional races to help reform candidates win, with the ultimate goal of having them pass campaign finance laws that limit the influence of SuperPACs. They're essentially working against themselves, but that's the entire point - if SuperPACs are done away with, they'll have done their job.

Re:How does it work?

[Charliemopps]

How does an anti-pac work? Do they pay the TV stations not to run the ads from the other super-pacs?

They will have a hit list. If you don't support reform, they will fund your opponent. This is how Super Pacs work, they use their money to influence small changes in policy on the part of candidates. Like reform... it's an easy thing to support with very little opposition. The candidate doesn't even have to make a big deal out of it. He just changes some wording on his website and viola, he doesn't have to worry about this PAC giving his opponent money. His opponents thinking the same thing so now BOTH sides of race are pro-reform.

They will likely do well at first. But when an actual reform bill comes up, the Eye of Sauron will be on them. When this comes up for a vote every other Super Pac in the country will realize their power is being challenged and the full weight of the political establishment will turn on them. They will face literally billions of dollars of opposition. I really doubt their ability to fundraise that kind of cash.

Re:How does it work?

[hweimer]

From what I understand, their goal as a SuperPAC is to pour money into congressional races to help reform candidates win, with the ultimate goal of having them pass campaign finance laws that limit the influence of SuperPACs.

So, the winning move for any candidate is to support reform until elected and then make a reversal and enjoy the windfall from the status quo. How are they going to prevent that?

Re:How does it work?

[Richard_at_work]

Do they have any legal recourse against candidates who are elected with their funding, only to split from them after the election?

Re:How does it work?

[Anonymous Coward]

They don't, I don't think. There's a risk of that happening with any political donation. However, the Mayday PAC will almost certainly be doing lots of research and investigation into the backgrounds of the candidates they back. The ones they'll be supporting will be the ones with a strong record of voting for reform. At the same time, people who run for office typically want to stay there once they get elected, and if Mayday is one of your biggest donators, you're going to think twice about going against them if you want to stay elected.

Further, you probably wouldn't see the corporate-backed PACs donating to these candidates, for the reason I mentioned before: risk. They'd want to back the guy who has spent his entire career in politics advocating for corporate rights, because there's less risk involved.

Re:How does it work?

[NoImNotNineVolt]

Do you have a better idea? (I also support WOLF-PAC)

Re:How does it work?

[Anonymous Coward]

Aw, come ON! Who ever heard of a political candidate saying one thing and doing the opposite?

Re:How does it work?

[Rob the Bold]

Do they have any legal recourse against candidates who are elected with their funding, only to split from them after the election?

"An honest politician is one who, when he is bought, will stay bought." -- U.S. Senator Simon Cameron (1799-1889)

Re:How does it work?

[Archangel Michael]

I am for reform. I'm just not for the reform leftists want. I want to reform the system towards liberty, and away from accumulated power. I doubt that if I were a candidate, the MAYDAY PAC would support me, because I am not "liberal" enough in some areas. I really doubt that I would garner much of their attention. Yeah, they may be for reform, just one sided reform.

Re:How does it work?

[Charliemopps]

Here's one plan that may be doable: http://anticorruptionact.org/
Scroll down a bit to see the specific points.

I'm a Libertarian and, while I have reservations, I see this as better than what we currently have. I want liberty from government AND business.

Re:How does it work?

[mean pun]

But at that stage the hope is that the masses of voters like these laws so much that voting against them would be political suicide. Therefore, the Super PACs will have to make these laws controversial in some way, and they will have to start as soon as they can. I have no talent in this area, so I don't know whether these ideas grab your guns, are socialist, harm your children, support terrorism, promote unions/homosexuality/abortion/government, continue the war on christmas, are an IRS complot, don't have a proper birth certificate, land you in FEMA camps, deserve a dog whistle, or introduce death panels, but the mud will be ready.

I'm sure the Eye of Sauron is already on this initiative. The memos have been written, and the mud will start flying as soon as it gathers any momentum.

Re:How does it work?

[Anonymous Coward]

I doubt that if I were a candidate, the MAYDAY PAC would support me, because I am not "liberal" enough in some areas.

As somebody who donated to 'stage 1' of Mayday, when I donated they asked if I wanted to fund Democrats exclusively, Republicans exclusively, or either (in other words whichever candidate is pro reform). I selected 'Either'.

Re:How does it work?

[Trogre]

Because if they tried to do that, their supporters would then "take a dim view" of their actions. Yeah, that'll show 'em.

Re:How does it work?

[Lord Kano]

I'm a Libertarian

OK. Fair enough.

I want liberty from government AND business.

Then, you're not really a Libertarian. Your association with any business is purely voluntary, absent any government coercion.

If the government didn't have so much power, there'd be no incentive for businesses to subvert it for their own goals.

LK

Re:How does it work?

[Anonymous Coward]

Many people get into politics to make a difference, then are forced to choose between compromising some of their ideals or being unable to act on any of them; you have to get dirty to pull in the $30k-$40k a week needed to fund a senatorial re-election campaign. If a guy can win without having to sell his soul, he's much more likely to vote with his conscience than his pragmatism.

You can't prevent a reversal afterward; however, it's unlikely that someone would take advantage of this. The 5 contenders are going to be selected for the ease with which they can win and their voting history. How many people go into politics with the hope that, after spending years establishing a history as a supporter of an unpopular issue, a PAC will appear out of thin air to fund them? They'd have better luck dumping their life savings into lottery tickets.

Re:How does it work?

[shutdown -p now]

They will face literally billions of dollars of opposition. I really doubt their ability to fundraise that kind of cash.

You may well be right. But if the choice is between going down with a fight, and going down without, I know which one I'll take.

f9ir5t

[Anonymous Coward]

During play, this give BSD credit ele3te3, we took

"Fundamental Reform"

[Kohath]

They say they want "fundamental reform", but they won't be specific about the "reform" they're proposing. Without specifics, "reform" can mean anything (or nothing).

Meanwhile, the Supreme Court has ruled (correctly) that spending money to print pamphlets, create a video, or publish a book about politics is free speech. So how "fundamental" can any reform actually be? Are they planning to amend the Constitution so the government can arrest people for making videos or publishing books?

I can't believe people are giving money to these guys.

Re:"Fundamental Reform"

[dinfinity]

What's your plan?

Re:"Fundamental Reform"

[thaylin]

Actually their site has links to several things want. Even never hearing of them before, it took me only a minute of my time to find it.. http://reform.to/#/reforms

They dont seem to be able blocking "pamphlets, create a video, or publish a book about politics", but about stopping the direct large scale donations, and quid pro quo that goes on in our government.

Re:"Fundamental Reform"

[Kohath]

Drastically smaller government. When the government can't do much of anything for (or to) anyone, there's very little to gain by corrupting it and very little harm when it gets corrupted.

Take the money out of politics by taking the money and the power out of government.

Re:"Fundamental Reform"

[Charliemopps]

They say they want "fundamental reform", but they won't be specific about the "reform" they're proposing. Without specifics, "reform" can mean anything (or nothing).

Meanwhile, the Supreme Court has ruled (correctly) that spending money to print pamphlets, create a video, or publish a book about politics is free speech. So how "fundamental" can any reform actually be? Are they planning to amend the Constitution so the government can arrest people for making videos or publishing books?

I can't believe people are giving money to these guys.

Yes they are. You have to read their FAQ lol
Basically all they are doing at first is planning to back the opponents of candidates that do not support "reform" They don't have to be specific, they just need to state they want "reform" in any form.

Later they will do more fund raising and get behind a particular proposal. The specifically mention 5. 2 democratic, 2 republican and 1 bipartisan.

So if you're donating to this particular campaign you're donating to get congress to agree that "Reform" is an issue that needs to be addressed. When it's time to support a specific proposal there will be new fundraisers and you can decide at that time if you support that particular proposal.

Re:"Fundamental Reform"

[jimmifett]

A better plan to get less money in politics is to remove the biggest impetus for political authority, the ability to decide winners and losers via the tax code.
Remove income tax and replace with a revenue neutral consumption tax such as the Fair Tax. Without the ability to offer favorable tax breaks to potential donors, who are seeking to ultimately alleviate tax costs on their interests, a large portion of corporate money will dry up, leaving the ideologues.

On a side note, how much more left leaning can one get than to name one's thing May Day? This guy is, IMO, bad news. According to wikipedia (had to look him up), advancing a populist agenda, removing the representative nature of having a representative republic by getting rid of electoral college and having a constitutional convention with random delegates instead of those selected by elected state governments to represent state's rights and interests. IMO, Lessig appears to be a Statist of the worst kind and I want nothing to do with him or the tyranny he would advance.

Re:"Fundamental Reform"

[Kohath]

I read their FAQ. "Reform" can mean anything. Anyone can pledge to support "reform". Later if there's a bill, they can say they're against the bill because of specific items but they still support "reform". Without specifics, it's meaningless.

Re:"Fundamental Reform"

[Archangel Michael]

print pamphlets, create a video, or publish a book about politics is free speech

Is it not free speech to do these things? Or you're just opposed to people doing these things for a cause you do not support? You are part of the problem because you think the problem is free speech for causes you don't support. I'll be dollars to doughnuts that you support your side (I don't know if you're (D) or (R)) having the right to "print pamphlets, create a video, or publish a book about politics". My guess, is you're a liberal though because liberals are well known for their hypocrisy regarding free speech.

Re:"Fundamental Reform"

[Archangel Michael]

Reading further, you almost sound Libertarian. However, I don't know a single libertarian that is opposed to people who "print pamphlets, create a video, or publish a book about politics".

Re:"Fundamental Reform"

[Archangel Michael]

Until we realize that all taxes are regressive, the problem will remain.

Re:"Fundamental Reform"

[ColdWetDog]

And just how do we get from here to there? An overarching theme like 'drastically smaller government' sounds great. Until you get to the messy details. How do you de fang the NSA? Get the Pentagon to accept some rational budget? Keep Texas from starting (another) war with Mexico?

You can 'reboot' the system and hope to hell it comes up with a command prompt instead of "Disk Not Found". Or you can (slowly) work at the edges to clean the system up. No it doesn't work well and it's slow as hell - certainly slower than any human lifetime - but it sounds quite a bit more sane than the other ways.

Re:"Fundamental Reform"

[RabidReindeer]

print pamphlets, create a video, or publish a book about politics is free speech

Is it not free speech to do these things? Or you're just opposed to people doing these things for a cause you do not support? You are part of the problem because you think the problem is free speech for causes you don't support. I'll be dollars to doughnuts that you support your side (I don't know if you're (D) or (R)) having the right to "print pamphlets, create a video, or publish a book about politics". My guess, is you're a liberal though because liberals are well known for their hypocrisy regarding free speech.

It's not a matter of what you want to say, it's how loud you shout.

Money buys a bigger megaphone. And unfortunately, we tend to elect whoever shouts the loudest.

Re:"Fundamental Reform"

[Archangel Michael]

"Yes We Can" - shouts the loudest

Re:"Fundamental Reform"

[jimmifett]

Apparently you are John Snow Know Nothing when it comes to the Fair Tax.
Allow me to enlighten you.

The Fair Tax is a 'progressive tax' with 2 key parts.

Part 1: The Consumption Tax

An inclusive consumption tax at a flat rate (at last reading, would be around 22%-23%) placed on all *NEW* goods and all services at the retail level.
This can only work if income and corporate taxes are repealed, as those are embedded invisibly into the final retail cost of a product or service along the supply chain. By removing those embedded taxes, the retail price would fall by approx 22-23%. Apply the inclusive consumption tax and the final retail price returns to almost the same as it's present value +- 1-2%.
Used or second hand products would not be taxed, as only NEW goods and services. States would facilitate the collection of the consumption tax as they already have in place the mechanisms for collecting sales tax. The inclusive tax would show up on receipts as a line item to make it's cost transparent to the consumer.

Part 2: The Prebate (aka, the progressive portion)
Each household of citizens will receive, based on family size, a prebate equal to the poverty limit for a family of that size, divided into 12 monthly payments over the course of a year. This prebate payment is to cover the cost of the consumption tax up to 100% spending of the poverty line for that family size.

Example 1:
presuming the poverty line for a single individual is $10,000, a single person household would get a prebate of (23% x 10,000) / 12, or $191.67 each month to cover the consumption tax. Consumption tax spent over the poverty line for that single person household would then be the responsibility of that person.

Example 2:
Presume a 5 person family poverty line is $30,000, that household will recieve a prebate of (23% x 30,000) / 12, or $575.00 each month to cover consumption taxes.

Example 3:
Lets take that same family of 5, and presume the household has an income of $50,000 (note not payroll, personal income taxes, medicare, etc taxes, they get 100% of check), and that family chose to spend 100% of their income on new goods and services. They would have ended up paying $11,500 in consumption tax over the course of the year. However, they also get their prebate for a family of 5 at the poverty level, which would be $6,900 over the year. This offsets the $11,500 in consumption tax, reducing the amount the household has to be responsible for down to $4,600 over the course of the year, or $383.33 monthly in inclusive consumption tax paid, presuming 100% of income spent on new goods and services.

Example 4:
Let us presume a wealthy individual that makes say, $250,000 a year. If that individual spent 100% of their income on new goods and services as in the above examples, this individual would have paid $57,500.00 in consumption taxes over the course of a year ($4,791.67 monthly in tax paid). However, this individual also gets their pretbate for the exact same amount as the person in example 1, as the poverty line for a single person is presumed in these examples to be $10,000. Thus this individual would recieve $2,300 a year ($191.67 monthly), to cover the consumption tax, reducing their tax to $55,200 yearly ($4,600 monthly).

Consumption tax liability covered by prebate assuming 100% spending on new goods and services:
Example 1: 100% covered by prebate, $0 out of pocket monthly tax expense
Example 2: 100% covered by prebate, $0 out of pocket monthly tax expense
Example 3: 60% covered by prebate, $383.33 out of pocket monthly tax expense
Example 4: 4% covered by prebate, $4,600 out of pocket monthly tax expense

Thus, a family living in poverty will never pay the consumption tax as it is covered by their prebate and wealthier households will spend considerably more with the same spending habbits.

Additional benefits include:
Tax free second hand market place, only new goods are taxed at retail.
No tax loopholes.
No more IRS
Corporate decis

Re:"Fundamental Reform"

[stenvar]

And just how do we get from here to there? An overarching theme like 'drastically smaller government' sounds great. Until you get to the messy details. How do you de fang the NSA? Get the Pentagon to accept some rational budget? Keep Texas from starting (another) war with Mexico?

Vote for different representatives, representatives that actually cut the budget. It has happened in the past and it's happening elsewhere.

Re:"Fundamental Reform"

[Anonymous Coward]

Until we realize that all taxes are regressive, the problem will remain.

No, what's regressive is watching an ever increasing amount of all wealth controlled by an ever smaller group of people.

That's just reverting to feudalism and pretending all is going well. We're moving back towards the rule of kings and the wealthy.

When your wealthy control your elections, your politicians, your laws, and your money ... your society is pretty much fucked.

The problem is idiots who act like this is the natural order of the universe and what we should aspire to.

And the drooling morons who have been propagating the lie of trickle down economics are the root cause. Sorry, but we regressed when we somehow decided that what was in the immediate interests of 1% of the people would some how have a carry over into improving the lives of the other 99%. It doesn't, it can't, and it never will.

Cutting the taxes on the most wealthy hasn't benefited the least wealthy. Unsurprisingly, it has only benefited the most wealthy, and the least wealthy now have even less.

That's basically theft, but done on an ideological basis you've convinced everybody was ethical and good and managed to institute as government policy as if it's rooted in fact. Here's a hint, economics isn't facts or science, it is ideology, pure and simple.

What you say is intellectually dishonest -- the only question is if you know you're lying to us, or you're actually lying to yourselves.

Re:"Fundamental Reform"

[HornWumpus]

Ruin the government's credit and everything else fixes it's self.

The main problem is chumps buying Treasuries. That's us BTW, we're not buying them directly, but with 'our' SS trust fund.

Of course when the treasuries thing ends, they will print money. That's the end game.

Re:"Fundamental Reform"

[jimmifett]

What you fail to realize is that the wealthy are not dragons that sit on their piles of money. Money has no value until it is trading hands. The "wealthy" do 2 things:
1) Spend their money
2) Invest their money to... MAKE MOAR MONEY!

Both these actions create jobs and spur the creation of businesses to produce things to be acquired and or consumed, and pay employees to produce or for services. Employees make money, investors try to invest wisely to make a positive return on the money invested, everyone wins with ZOMG! TRICKLE DOWN!

Money hidden under the mattress does no any good.

Re:"Fundamental Reform"

[Rob the Bold]

What you fail to realize is that the wealthy are not dragons that sit on their piles of money. Money has no value until it is trading hands. The "wealthy" do 2 things: 1) Spend their money 2) Invest their money to... MAKE MOAR MONEY!

Both these actions create jobs and spur the creation of businesses to produce things to be acquired and or consumed, and pay employees to produce or for services. Employees make money, investors try to invest wisely to make a positive return on the money invested, everyone wins with ZOMG! TRICKLE DOWN!

Money hidden under the mattress does no any good.

I agree that money only has value when it moves. But making more money does not necessarily create jobs. It might. Or it might not. One might make more money by doubling widget production capacity with twice the factories, twice the labor, etc. Or one might make more money by finding a way to make the same number of widgets with less labor, thus increasing profit. Maybe it's some of both. Money does not care how it is made. Capitalism means getting a return on capital. Sometimes the side effects of returning value to investors benefit those without the capital, too.

Re:"Fundamental Reform"

[Anonymous Coward]

"OH, but then the corporations would rule and the evul robber barons of unfettered free market capitalism of yore would once again stride the earth, laissez faire style, and no longer have to work from behind the scenes through their oh-so-progressive trust fund grandchildren, trade unions, NGOs, community organizers, and so on."

Tweedle-Dum, Tweedle-Dee. We still have Pinkertons, either way. Where are the Wobblies when you need them?

Re: "Fundamental Reform"

[Anonymous Coward]

One tiny little problem with all this: the very wealthy don't spend all their money on new goods and services. People with lesser incomes do. So essentially this exempts the rich from EVEN MORE taxes than they're exempt from now. It enshrines permanently shifting the tax burden downwards. That's the problem with well meaning but overly simple solutions.

Also, it's worth noting that this solution is supported by a lot of wealthy backers and corporations. They know how it will affect them, and they would be quite happy.

Re:"Fundamental Reform"

[dinfinity]

- "My computer is broken."
= "Throw it away."

Although you've technically resolved the initial problem, it's not a very good solution. I hope you realize that.

Re:"Fundamental Reform"

[mpercy]

Because printing money in two steps is so much less efficient than printing it directly. They're already printing money, the government just uses the fiction of selling itself bonds to lay a very thin veneer over the process.

Re:"Fundamental Reform"

[dinfinity]

Right, because lobbying and funding political campaigns to influence what laws are instated will disappear because of the FairTax (tm). If you think tax breaks are the only thing these lobbyists are interested in, you are blissfully naive.

Re:"Fundamental Reform"

[jimmifett]

I said get LESS money in politics.
Obviously you will still have politicians throwing around our tax dollars at pet projects, wasteful social projects and such, but an awful lot of money goes into manipulating the tax code. Having a balanced budget amendment and not hamstringing the CBO with arbitrary limitations preventing accurate assessments would also go a long way.

Re:"Fundamental Reform"

[dinfinity]

So the money in all those accounts in various island states, Switzerland and Luxembourg is what, 'invested'?
Also, 'investing' in commodities isn't really investing. It's more like a currency exchange; the only jobs that such activities drive are in the financial sector.

Ultimately, an economy is demand-driven; if you want to stimulate a certain economy, you need to look at what that economy can provide (without to much extra effort) and then put money into the hands of the people that want what said economy can provide. That is very hard to do, because who knows what people will spend their money on?

One of the things we do know is that when it comes to 'buying local', poor people are a lot more effective than rich people (they tend to go for 'exclusive' and 'exotic' things).

Re:"Fundamental Reform"

[dinfinity]

No, you said: "a better plan to get less money in politics"
As long as a company has money burning in its pocket and ways and means to get it to people that can greatly influence the operations of that company, it will throw the money at those people. Parliaments must be held to the strictest of standards when it comes to corruption and nepotism, not stripped of power.

Re:"Fundamental Reform"

[jimmifett]

I would presume that yes, that money is invested by the banks that the money is stored in to generate money for the banks and pay interest to clients. In addition, the reason money is stored out of country is to avoid heavy income taxation. Removing income taxation and corporate taxation makes for an attractive environment for capital investment, spurring business creation and economic growth. In such an environment that is welcoming of wealth instead of punishing via taxation, people will repatriate their monies to such markets if they provide the opportunity for greater returns than sitting in some foreign bank. Greed is an excellent motivator in moving money to where it is most suited to making yet more money. No/Low Corporate, Income and Investment Tax friendly environments act as a beacon, places that take advantage of this benefit from an influx of money. All one has to do is look at movement and creation of new companies in states such as texas and florida with inviting tax climates, versus stagnation or worse in states with heavy income and corporate taxation and excessive regulation.

tl;dr version: get the government the hell out of the way let the money flow.

Re:"Fundamental Reform"

[Kohath]

It's more like "the dog that bites me every day and eats my food is sick". Getting rid of it solves multiple problems.

Re:"Fundamental Reform"

[Archangel Michael]

In case you don't realize ... ALL TAXES are regressive. The fact that people think they are "progressive" is simply the result of not understanding the nature of taxes and legal tax avoidance. You see, while the poor STILL won't pay taxes, the middle class will STILL have the burden of taxes, and the rich will simply avoid taxes.

Taxes are a necessary evil, but that doesn't make them less evil if one tries (noisy way of doing nothing) make them "more fair". The best taxes are those that are voluntary, like Cigarette taxes. I can simply avoid taxes by NOT smoking. However, taxing things that everyone needs, like income, food, housing .... is pure evil, because one cannot avoid it, except to become a complete leech upon society.

I dare say that something like taxing soda at a rate that compensated society for the ills created by soda, would make our society healthier, as people would choose to avoid soda. This would suck for Pepsi and Coke, but it would reduce obesity voluntarily. You can go down the list of non-necessity items and tax them, letting people to Opt Out of taxes responsibly.

If you did this, you could fund every Social Program you wanted, while reducing the need for many of them by creating incentives to avoid taxes. Legalize pot, prostitution etc, and tax the crap out of them, and regulating them to death (legitimately). We would reduce our prison population dramatically while also being a benefit to society.

The problem isn't fair vs unfair taxes, it is taxes. Period. Make taxes voluntary.

Re:"Fundamental Reform"

[HornWumpus]

The government (the fed actually) does buy a good chunk of bonds, which is just as you say. But there are still many chumps out there.

Re:"Fundamental Reform"

[jimmifett]

Sigh, you didn't bother to read what I posted in full, did you.

The Fair Tax is 100% voluntary. One only pays taxes when one purchases a *New* good or a service at the retail level. Purchase second hand, and there is no tax collected.

The "Fair" in fair taxes comes into play in that ALL NEW goods and services are taxed at the exact same rate, and that all households receive the prebate regardless of income level.
There are no exempt items except second hand.
There are no tax loopholes for the wealthy to avoid other than buying second hand.
There are no extra "sin" taxes to be manipulated by politicians for things such as sugary drinks or lessened rates for "good" things.
It's all flat at the same rate, for everything.

Under this system, the more one spends, the more tax is collected.
The hidden embedded tax costs of new products and services due to payroll, medicare, and corporate taxes inflating price no longer exists. Thus the price drops. Then a line item is added to the receipt for a 22-23% Inclusive (as opposed to exclusive) tax. The brings the price of the good or service back to within 1% of it's starting price before such a plan went into effect, only now it is in the open on the receipt, and only collected at retail so an item is only taxed once.

"Now good sir" one might say, "if the embedded taxes disappear, what's to stop companies from keeping the current price and adding the inclusive tax on top of what currently exists and pocketing the difference?"

Greed my dear friend, Wonderful Greed. As soon as a competitor figures out that they can undercut others that pocket the difference from the original price, they will start a race to the minimum price to sell more than the competition, which will balance out at the point of not having pocketed the difference in the first place.

The Fair Tax is about equal treatment for everyone and everything under tax law, not what some politician likes or dislikes.

Re:"Fundamental Reform"

[Archangel Michael]

"The "Fair" in fair taxes comes into play in that ALL NEW goods and services are taxed at the exact same rate"

This is hardly fair. The premise of the fair tax is that government has a right to take money from people. It doesn't. I would consider taxes to be violation of the Fourth Amendment, of unreasonable seizure.

Besides, I'm not buying used underwear. Nope not gonna do it.

Re:"Fundamental Reform"

[dinfinity]

I would presume that yes, that money is invested by the banks that the money is stored in to generate money for the banks and pay interest to clients

So the best way to get an economy to flourish is to have everybody put their money into savings accounts and not buy anything anymore?
Do you have any idea why the concept of inflation is popular among economists?

Anyway, the problem is that it is just not doable to get wealthy people to spend money the way you want them to. The thing is that they are very good at managing their money and have the resources to do so. Dislike it as much as you want, but a lot of the economy is driven by (non-wealthy) people buying stuff they don't really need (instead of investing their money for the highest ROI and instead of finding loop holes to avoid losing their money).

Re:"Fundamental Reform"

[dinfinity]

Really now? It's just a sick aggressive dog that is unnecessary?
How do you envision your world without (meaningful) government? How would that work?

Re:"Fundamental Reform"

[Lord Kano]

Technically, our current system is "voluntary" as well.

See what happens if you don't volunteer to pay.

LK

Re:"Fundamental Reform"

[Kohath]

I said "drastically smaller". That's not the same thing as "without".

A drastically smaller government, for example, wouldn't include a Department of Housing and Urban Development. Housing is a personal, or at most, a local problem.

A drastically smaller government wouldn't include a Department of Education. Education is an individual or family issue. Teaching and learning are simple, harmless transfers of knowledge. They should not be governed or policed. Central government has no legitimate role in education.

Agriculture is local. Unless there's a pandemic, Health and Human Services are local. Transportation -- at least road and train transportation -- is local. Street crime is local. Central government is mostly not needed for these things.

Central government has legitimate roles: national defense, minting a currency, international diplomacy, etc. If central government stuck to doing things we really need the central government for, it would be drastically smaller, much less expensive, and there would be a lot fewer opportunities for corrupt officials and congressmen.

Re:"Fundamental Reform"

[dinfinity]

That something occurs locally, doesn't mean that it is efficient to govern it locally.

Calling train transportation or education 'local' is absolutely retarded. Good luck running an economy with people that have diplomas like 'Smartest kid in the world. Signed, mom' or getting trains to run on railways with different widths.

The Romans figured out why centralized government works for a lot of aspects in life 2000 years ago. You should take (or at least fucking read) a page from their book.
Also, you should appreciate what centralized government has already done for you personally instead of taking it for granted.

Re:"Fundamental Reform"

[jimmifett]

Much as I don't like taxation myself, Article 1 Section 8 would like to disagree with you.
Of course, this only applies to indirect taxation (which we can both agree is prefer, and is what the Fair Tax is). direct taxation (income/property tax) didn't come until later.

Re:"Fundamental Reform"

[Kohath]

That something occurs locally, doesn't mean that it is efficient to govern it locally.

Just because something occurs, that doesn't mean it needs to be governed at all. For the most part, people can live their own lives without a government mommy watching and second guessing everything they do.

And are you really trying to claim our huge central government is "efficient"? It must be really, really efficient for all that efficiency to outweigh the corruption.

Good luck running an economy with people that have diplomas like 'Smartest kid in the world. Signed, mom' or getting trains to run on railways with different widths.

Economies aren't "run". Individuals make individual choices.

Standardization regularly happens without government edict. The government didn't write the standard for email, for example, but there's still a more-or-less universal standard. It was all done without threats, without police, without graft, without government hearings, without bailouts for the losing technologies, and without paying an email tax.

The Romans...

...died and their empire crumbled. Their centralized government didn't save them.

Also, you should appreciate what centralized government has already done for you personally instead of taking it for granted.

I do appreciate what they do. It's just not worth the cost. I appreciate a good hamburger. I don't want to pay $2000 for a good hamburger. I don't appreciate being policed and regulated and threatened and spied on and otherwise oppressed in return for the opportunity to get on a waiting list buy a good hamburger for $2000.

Re:"Fundamental Reform"

[jimmifett]

uh... what? what in the name of delicious bacon are you talking about?

You're clearing leaping to ludicrous inferences and conclusions.
Money in banks does not sit stagnant. It moves around to create more money to fund the bank and pay interest on accounts.

Anyway, the problem is that it is just not doable to get wealthy people to spend money the way you want them to.

Let's get one thing clear. It's THEIR money. No one has to spend money in a way you believe would be more beneficial or efficient. You have no claim over it. If you want someone of any level of wealth to transition THEIR money in a direction you desire, you must entice them via exchange of goods or services that person believes is equivalent (or better) in value, or show that you can make them a profitable return on their capital investment.

When one tries to force, via seizing or forfeiture of assets, those assets are going to move away from the source of that force very quickly.
Taxation of assets is tolerable to a degree until the taxed feel that the services paid for by taxation no longer benefit their interests or exceeds that individual's tolerance level for taxation. Once the threshold has been passed, individuals move their assets to a more tolerable environment. This is why wealth flees heavily taxed states.

The attitude that one is misusing wealth by spending (or not spending) according to another person's desires is arrogant, classist, statist, and morally evil.

Good DAY, sir.

Re:"Fundamental Reform"

[jimmifett]

I dunno about that.
I would classify "voluntary" as indirect taxation.
Direct taxation such as income or property tax is significantly less "voluntary". tho granted, until the ACA, I could "choose" not to work or own taxable property and not be taxed simply for existing.

Re:"Fundamental Reform"

[dinfinity]

Just because something occurs, that doesn't mean it needs to be governed at all. For the most part, people can live their own lives without a government mommy watching and second guessing everything they do.

For the most part, people live their own lives relying on running water, roads, electricity, safety standards for food, cars and houses, centralized conflict resolution and prevention. Wherever you are: take a look around you and realize that there are loads of things that would be an absolute fucking mess if there wasn't some regulation making sure it wouldn't be. I'm talking about child labor, carcinogens in toys for children, rampant crime, etc.

The layer of civilization is very, very thin and fragile. Living in the jungle is cool, until you get eaten by a tiger or poisoned by a venomous insect.

Economies aren't "run".

Yes, they are. Interest rates are set, tax rates are set, legislation around working is set up, crises are dealt with, etc. You can believe the fairy tale that an economy without rules benefits the people, but it would be just that: a fairy tale.

The government didn't write the standard for email, for example, but there's still a more-or-less universal standard.

Actually, ARPANET was pretty important in the development of SMTP.

The Romans...

...died and their empire crumbled. Their centralized government didn't save them.

Yeah. One of the main reasons the empire fell is because it became so big that it became hard to keep the distant parts of the empire in check (information pretty much traveled at the speed of a horse). They found a real physical limitation to their political structure. Not some made up bullshit story about 'big government' always being 'inefficient'.

I do appreciate what they do. It's just not worth the cost. I appreciate a good hamburger. I don't want to pay $2000 for a good hamburger. I don't appreciate being policed and regulated and threatened and spied on and otherwise oppressed in return for the opportunity to get on a waiting list buy a good hamburger for $2000.

The thing is: you have no idea how it would be like without that hamburger. Would you want to eat dog poop every day for $2?
Because that's what you're looking at: something really cheap and really shitty.

Re:"Fundamental Reform"

[dinfinity]

You didn't answer my questions.

When one tries to force, via seizing or forfeiture of assets, those assets are going to move away from the source of that force very quickly.
Taxation of assets is tolerable to a degree until the taxed feel that the services paid for by taxation no longer benefit their interests or exceeds that individual's tolerance level for taxation. Once the threshold has been passed, individuals move their assets to a more tolerable environment. This is why wealth flees heavily taxed states.

So you agree with taxation, but not more than what people feel benefits their interests? Protip: the only place feelings have in science is when they are the subject of investigation.

I'll tell you something else: the concept of 'stealing' does not exist in the animal world. It's simply about who is able to dominate who. As highly intelligent, social and cooperative species, we have created laws that have us all respect possession because it benefits society as a whole. Never forget that it's not about the money or the things, but about living in a society that functions well and promotes progress and prosperity. My point is: we need to make sure that our system of government, our monetary system and our laws in general work towards that, instead of mentally clinging to a manufactured absolute concept of "what's yours is yours".

Re:"Fundamental Reform"

[Kohath]

You're basically selling a really terrible system by making up FUD about the bad things that might happen if there are any changes. What branch of government writes your paychecks?

Re:"Fundamental Reform"

[dinfinity]

FUD? You mean history.

You're a spoiled brat and don't realize that at all.

Re:"Fundamental Reform"

[Kohath]

And you're defending corruption and graft and repression. Because "efficiency" and what if bogeymen come?!?

Plus you skipped the part of "history" where governments slaughtered 100s of millions of innocent people and enslaved tens of millions more.

Re:"Fundamental Reform"

[dinfinity]

And you're defending corruption and graft and repression.

Bullshit. Go ahead: quote me where I did that.

Plus you skipped the part of "history" where governments slaughtered 100s of millions of innocent people and enslaved tens of millions more.

What the fuck are you talking about, man? There's a difference between 'big government' and totalitarian genocidal dictatorships.
You should really try to get over your irrational, perpetual and unwavering disliking for the word 'government'. It's a sign of indoctrination.

Re:"Fundamental Reform"

[Kohath]

There's a difference between 'big government' and totalitarian genocidal dictatorships.

Are you OK with totalitarian dictatorships as long as they're not genocidal?

What's the dividing line between "big government" and "totalitarian" anyway? How do we keep a government with few limits from becoming a government with very few limits or no limits? Wishful thinking?

The current government is already spying on us all and sending the IRS after political enemies. Farm policies, defense spending, tariffs and import restrictions, immigration policies, financial regulations, clean energy loan guarantees, and environmental regulations are already for sale for campaign cash or non-cash campaign support. This is big government. This is what happens.

Do you think you can somehow magically get all the good things and none of the bad things? If you have the magic power to bring about this utopia, why aren't you using it?

Re:"Fundamental Reform"

[dinfinity]

Are you OK with totalitarian dictatorships as long as they're not genocidal?

What's the dividing line between "big government" and "totalitarian" anyway?

Really?
Really??
Are you really equating 'big government' and 'totalitarian government'?
The world is not black and white, you know?

How do we keep a government with few limits from becoming a government with very few limits or no limits? Wishful thinking?

Functioning democracy.
The US doesn't have that. And that is your problem, not 'big government'.

The current government is already spying on us all and sending the IRS after political enemies. Farm policies, defense spending, tariffs and import restrictions, immigration policies, financial regulations, clean energy loan guarantees, and environmental regulations are already for sale for campaign cash or non-cash campaign support. This is big government. This is what happens.

Not where I live.

Checkmate.

Re:"Fundamental Reform"

[Kohath]

Not where I live.

Where is that? If you're not talking about the US, then everything you've said is 100% useless.

The US has a unique culture with unique problems. Big government can work in a largely homogeneous society, where there exists broad agreement on some cultural norms, a genuinely independent press, and some other unifying virtues. That's not the US. The US can't become Switzerland or Norway or Germany or Denmark. Pretending we can is a stupid waste of everyone's time.

Small government works in the US. Big Government does not.

Re:"Fundamental Reform"

[dinfinity]

So I take it that you have no problem with big government on a state level?
Or do we need to go even smaller? Municipal level?

Your idea of how 'homogeneous' countries with 'big government' are is wrong and a cop out. It has nothing to do with managing and deciding things on a larger scale, which is extremely effective for a lot of things in life. Your fundamental thinking error is that because an implementation of an influential government is broken in the US, that the concept of an influential government is broken.
It isn't. You just suck at it.

Don't get me wrong. It's not easy. Humans are generally greedy, selfish, violent, short-sighted animals. We need to keep ourselves in check and prevent ourselves from making mistakes. One only need to look as far as the tragedy of the commons to understand why government is the way to do that.

Re:"Fundamental Reform"

[Anonymous Coward]

Functioning democracy. The US doesn't have that. And that is your problem, not 'big government'.

You don't have "functioning democracy". You come from a nation that is borderline totalitarian, and your ridiculous political ideas are the result of indoctrination in your schools, coupled with almost complete ignorance about US history or society.

Re:"Fundamental Reform"

[Anonymous Coward]

So I take it that you have no problem with big government on a state level?
Or do we need to go even smaller? Municipal level?

Government should be as small and as local as necessary to do its job. That's not a US obsession, it's part of the Maastricht treaty and a fundamental principle of many European nations.

Humans are generally greedy, selfish, violent, short-sighted animals. We need to keep ourselves in check and prevent ourselves from making mistakes

Yes, each of us need to keep themselves in check; and if we fail to do so, we automatically pay the price.

Greedy, selfish, violent, and short-sighted guys like you, however, want to take away other people's rights, liberties, and stuff. And because others generally resist that, you come up with all sorts of convoluted rationalizations for your political goals.

One only need to look as far as the tragedy of the commons

The tragedy of the commons is a speculative and vague idea, not a proven economic law. Even if it were on more solid footing, it wouldn't apply to most things people do, and there is no shred of evidence that "big government" is the only solution to that supposed dilemma, or even that it is a solution at all. The "tragedy of the commons" is really simply a toy argument that people of your political persuasion use to justify their greedy, selfish, violent, and short-sighted policies.

So, it's just another Democrat PAC masquerading

[jnaujok]

This "Anti-PAC" is just a PAC supporting the two largest Democrat campaign finance bills which are more properly termed the "Silence Dissent Acts" or "Incumbent Protection Act" then any kind of real campaign finance reform.

So, all they are is another Democrat PAC masquerading under a fake name. Oh, they claim to support three other bills with bi-partisan support, which are bills sponsored by four back-benchers (Tom Petrie anyone? 30+ years in Congress and I don't think he's successfully sponsored one bill.) that will never make it out of sub-committee.

So, two hyper-left (Barbara Boxer, Henry Waxman, Dianne Feinstein type) proposals, and three non-events.

Anti-PAC, it's another way of saying "Democrat".

Makes you wonder why they feel they have to lie about their intentions.

Re:So, it's just another Democrat PAC masquerading

[gstoddart]

So, do you really believe you get a good system of government when the more money you have the more access you have to political speech?

Or do you end up with a system which is heavily skewed to the wishes of a handful of wealthy people -- which is pretty much what you have now.

If rich people can pay lots of money to convince government to lower their taxes while cutting services for everybody else ... well, sooner or later, that 'everybody else' might decide they've had enough and do something about it.

And that didn't work out so well for Marie Antoinette and others who felt they should be entitled to cal the shots.

We hold these truths to be self-evident, that all men are created equal, that they are endowed by their Creator with certain unalienable Rights, that among these are Life, Liberty, and the Pursuit of Happiness. That to secure these rights, Governments are instituted among Men, deriving their just powers from the consent of the governed

Unless you have lots of money, in which case you're more equal, and the governed be damned because you can make what you want happens. So, we're back to "four legs good, two legs better".

And then the governed decide that they're tired of putting up with your shit.

If you're going to build your society around what the wealthy can afford to buy in terms of political action, you will end up with an inherently unjust society.

Re:So, it's just another Democrat PAC masquerading

[Anonymous Coward]

So do you really believe that murdering people is the right way to reform a political system that has end results you don't like?

If you're going to build your society around murdering people to gain power, you will end up in a grave just like everyone else.

Re:So, it's just another Democrat PAC masquerading

[gstoddart]

So do you really believe that murdering people is the right way to reform a political system that has end results you don't like?

I'm not advocating it. I'm saying it's something which might happen.

And the more you skew your system to favor the outcomes bought and paid for by the wealthy, the more of an unjust system you have.

If you built your society around being inherently imbalanced, it usually doesn't work out well in the long run.

Re:So, it's just another Democrat PAC masquerading

[butalearner]

So, do you really believe you get a good system of government when the more money you have the more access you have to political speech?

Of course he doesn't believe that, but those bills are sponsored by a bunch of Democrats. Don't be fooled by how the political process worked in the past; these days, the only item of importance in any given bill is the letter between the sponsor's name and home state.

Re:So, it's just another Democrat PAC masquerading

[Anonymous Coward]

these days, the only item of importance in any given bill is the letter between the sponsor's name and home state

And the highly specific disconnect with reality (ie that matches your own) between their ears.

Many Americans now openly support things which in my lifetime would have been things they'd have gone to war against.

Re:So, it's just another Democrat PAC masquerading

[stenvar]

Or do you end up with a system which is heavily skewed to the wishes of a handful of wealthy people -- which is pretty much what you have now.

Lucky for us, we don't have such a system. Financially, there are many places in Europe and Asia that are far more favorable for the interests of wealthy people.

If you're going to build your society around what the wealthy can afford to buy in terms of political action, you will end up with an inherently unjust society.

The kind of "just society" you want to achieve can only be achieved through totalitarianism, as centuries of European history show.

I prefer having freedom to government-imposed uniformity; the fact that many people end up wealthier than me through chance or even "unfair advantages" doesn't bother me much. You should get over it too.

Re:So, it's just another Democrat PAC masquerading

[Anonymous Coward]

Getting a way for politicians to run campaigns without having to shake down industry is a way towards less regulation. True small-government conservatives should support such measures.

Crony capitalism is breaking the free market, and this is a fix for that.

Re:So, it's just another Democrat PAC masquerading

[gstoddart]

The kind of "just society" you want to achieve can only be achieved through totalitarianism, as centuries of European history show.

Horseshit.

I prefer having freedom to government-imposed uniformity; the fact that many people end up wealthier than me through chance or even "unfair advantages" doesn't bother me much.

When that 'chance' and 'unfair advantage' comes about because they can afford to pay more into the political system to ensure that their 'chance' comes about, you should be bothered too.

You should get over it too.

So you're officially saying you've accepted a broken system, but you're so apathetic you don't care any more?

That, sir, is your problem not mine.

Re:So, it's just another Democrat PAC masquerading

[psycho12345]

And what do you say when the wealthy becomes the government and impose the uniformity anyhow? Welcome to feudalism.

Re:So, it's just another Democrat PAC masquerading

[Anonymous Coward]

Likewise if you build your society around what the technocrats, kleptocrats, spook-o-crats can steer the wealthy to steer the plebes to buy in terms of political action, bread, circuses, kardashian backsides, etc.

That pesky 1st amendment again.

Progressive dupes of willful Democrat success generating its own intended failure. We won't even discuss the Repubicans.

Re:So, it's just another Democrat PAC masquerading

[Anonymous Coward]

I prefer having freedom to government-imposed uniformity; the fact that many people end up wealthier than me through chance or even "unfair advantages" doesn't bother me much. You should get over it too.

Translation: I am so entirely subjugated by corporate interests that the only thing I can spew is their propaganda. I would spite my friends and family if it makes my corporate overlords happy. I have absolutely no power, and I like it that way because I can belittle the ones who are upset about the blatant, inescapable problems inherent in the system of servitude I prefer.

Re:So, it's just another Democrat PAC masquerading

[Lord Kano]

Or do you end up with a system which is heavily skewed to the wishes of a handful of wealthy people -- which is pretty much what you have now.

That's a popular canard but it's not always true. Intensity beats extensity, every time.

This is an example of what I mean, Eric Cantor just lost his primary to a no-name Tea Partier that he outspent 27 to 1.

In local, state and national elections the ability to motivate people is what wins elections.

In 2008, Mitt Romney and Rudy Giuliani out-fundraised McCain by 7 million and 4 million dollars respectively and they both lost.

The Democrats were even more interesting on this front. First when he beat the Clinton machine in the 2008 primary. His campaign employed analytics on a level that hadn't been seen before, especially for a political nobody who was barely on the national stage for 4 years. Hillary out-funraised Barack by over 11 million dollars and he soundly beat her.

Obama out-spent McCain by almost 400 million dollars and had it not been for his running mate, McCain would have faced an embarrassing loss in the general election. Beyond that money, Obama had the organization to win.

Obama out-spent Romney by 250 million dollars. Had the election taken place a year later, his victory wouldn't have been assured. Despite a quarter of a billion dollar advantage, the incumbent nearly lost.

The thread that unites all of these cases is that in every instance, the candidate with the most energetic following won. Money helps but it's only the losers who complain when the game that they chose to play doesn't turn out their way.

LK

Re:So, it's just another Democrat PAC masquerading

[stenvar]

And what do you say when the wealthy becomes the government and impose the uniformity anyhow? Welcome to feudalism.

I'd say that you have a fundamental misunderstanding of what "feudalism" is. Fedualism isn't the result of free market activity and individual liberties, it's the result of strong government: the kind you advocate.

Re:So, it's just another Democrat PAC masquerading

[stenvar]

When that 'chance' and 'unfair advantage' comes about because they can afford to pay more into the political system to ensure that their 'chance' comes about, you should be bothered too.

To use your words: "horseshit"; that's not what's happening in the US.

So you're officially saying you've accepted a broken system, but you're so apathetic you don't care any more?

I care a great deal: I want people not to sacrifice our liberties and democracy in order to fix imaginary problems that power-hungry politicians use to win elections, and then enrich themselves and their cronies.

You want to break the system more and more, and you need to stop being someone's mindless political puppet.

Re:So, it's just another Democrat PAC masquerading

[Anonymous Coward]

And that didn't work out so well for Marie Antoinette and others who felt they should be entitled to cal the shots.

Ah, but there is one small, yet crucial difference: None in Kingdom of France who wasn't from royal dynasty could ever dream of becoming a royalty. Capitalism endures and floats due to a simple trick: it convinces the exploited that they (individually) actually can rise to power, or at least that they too can take away someone else's lunch money, be victors, pull themselves up a bit, be not-just-anybody. Sure, I could win the lottery, but realistically, what are my chances? And whenever dissent rises, you'll see typical reaction: instead of expensive social support, more spurring greedy imagination, promoting "American dream", picking (or perhaps making up?) another handful of "self-made billionaires"!

Ban donations

[Anonymous Coward]

One solution would be to ban political donations completely. Make the parties funded only by fixed membership fees - with each member paying the same fee.

Re:Ban donations

[stiggle]

Add to that a clause that you can only fund politicians within your own state.
So you can fund any locally based politician and a presidential campaign within your own state, but presidential campaign funds cannot be used in other states.

Might cut the senator for Hollywood being voted in by Utah.

Incumbent Protection Acts?

[dfenstrate]

Limiting spending in elections inherently favors incumbents. Keep that in mind when you're talking about getting money out of politics.

Re:Incumbent Protection Acts?

[gstoddart]

Limiting spending in elections inherently favors incumbents

No, limiting spending inherently prevents the wealthy from dominating the discourse in a way that the non-wealthy simply cannot.

It says the more money you have, the more say you get. That's feudalism. Which is pretty much the opposite of the principles on which the US was founded.

Re:Incumbent Protection Acts?

[GameboyRMH]

How is that? I'd think it would level the playing field somewhat between the incumbents who could receive super-PAC money and the newcomers who couldn't.

Re:Incumbent Protection Acts?

[Attila Dimedici]

Well, there are two ways to reach the OP's conclusion. The first is to examine the history of "campaign finance reform", where you discover that the re-election rate for incumbents has gone UP after the passage of each such bill. The second is to examine the nature of elections. An incumbent can use government funds in order to make his constituents aware of who he is. A challenger, on the other hand, needs to make people aware of who he/she is.

Re:Incumbent Protection Acts?

[GameboyRMH]

Sounds like the second point is the root of the problem, incumbents shouldn't have more access to public campaign finance than any other candidate. So more campaign finance reform is needed to target that.

Re:Incumbent Protection Acts?

[Anonymous Coward]

I'd think it would level the playing field somewhat between the incumbents who could receive super-PAC money and the newcomers who couldn't.

Except that the incumbent's name is already recognized. And he can use government money to send informational newsletters to everyone in his district. And he can go to a grocery store opening or a local construction project and get free TV news coverage. None of those things may be technically campaign events, but they do influence elections. Challengers start with a substantial disadvantage, and money is the only way they overcome the natural media monopoly of the incumbent.

PACs will give money to whomever they think will serve their purposes. Whether that's because he's susceptible to suggestion or just agrees with the PAC by disposition is irrelevant.

Re:Incumbent Protection Acts?

[Attila Dimedici]

Incumbents are not using public campaign finance. They are sending out information to their constituents about laws that have been passed. They are appearing at ribbon cutting ceremonies. They are mentioned in news articles about laws they proposed. They are mentioned in news articles about current events. You cannot prevent incumbents from gaining publicity due to the fact that they are in office without making them completely unaccountable for their actions.

Re:Incumbent Protection Acts?

[Anonymous Coward]

It's not all "campaign finance," though, some of it is the power of the incumbent office. For example, Obama has a lot more visibility than Romney (certainly true today), precisely because he is the sitting incumbent and gets to make official speeches, push for legislation, and all of the other executive powers. Funding was necessary to make his campaign look as official as one with Air Force One parked on the runway behind it. This happens on a smaller scale at all levels.

Re:Incumbent Protection Acts?

[GameboyRMH]

Well since there's nothing that can be done about it, why make the problem worse by allowing them to gather more money as well? To argue otherwise sounds too much like "X can never be eliminated therefore it makes no sense to attempt to restrict X" logic.

Re:Incumbent Protection Acts?

[kwbauer]

Well, the actual people involved in starting and running the revolution risked their lives creating and distributing advertising and even occasionally pooling their money to do so and they were generally landowners and probably considered as belonging to the wealthier part of society.

So how exactly is limiting that ability today in keeping with the ideals they practiced?

Left money for a middle cause? I don't buy it.

[Anonymous Coward]

OK so they raised $1M from unsuspecting id10ts on Kickstarter, good for them. Then a list of really nice, politically clean and pure people matched the $1M. What a load of BS. Hope and change baby!

Fundamental Reform?

[Anonymous Coward]

Like 'Hope and change'?

How is this any different from any other PAC? Pour money in to promote some worm as a 'good politician. Like Obama - w/o the mass media effect and tons of money this bum wouldn't have made the White House lawncare.

Did you at least request lube before the pounding began?

the naivety is painful

[xappax]

Really? You're going to end the corrupting influence of corporate money in politics by out-fundraising them?

Having money is the one thing corporations are good at, and they're really, really good at it. If your strategy hinges on using money as influence, you're always going to lose, because they are FAR better and more practiced at that game than you are.

The only way to advance this particular agenda is to exploit the strengths that we have which corporations don't. We can fill the streets with real people, we can make disruptive spectacles and speak earnestly about social problems. Unlike corporations, we don't need to hide behind spokespeople and PACs, because we have authenticity. We are genuinely concerned about the future of our democracy, and though corporations can try hard to simulate that concern, it's never as authentic as the real thing.

The MAYDAY PAC is like David trying to beat Goliath in a fist fight. Don't fight on his terms, use the sling, idiot!

Re:the naivety is painful

[thoromyr]

I think this is really what is bothering me about the MAYDAY PAC. The idea that the game can be beat by playing it on the terms of those who have rigged it... I understand the principle is to back politicians who will vote for reform, but a couple of seats -- even if it happens -- don't mean squat. Having a few bought-and-paid-for stooges who will vote for something doesn't actually work: it has to make it into a bill first, in a form that hasn't been mangled into the opposite of the intent, and brought to a vote. To actually get a bill into law requires seniority and support from senior politicians. And those will be the ones least susceptible the MAYDAY PAC. This seems like much ado about nothing.

I think the people behind it have good intentions, but I fail to see how the effort will produce any meaningful change or reform.

Re:the naivety is painful

[Anonymous Coward]

I think this is really what is bothering me about the MAYDAY PAC. The idea that the game can be beat by playing it on the terms of those who have rigged it...

It's a level playing field; no one's dollar is worth than anyone else's. The issue is that some 'teams' have way more funding currently. You don't need to spend as much as private companies to be effective in countering their lobbying, but you do have to spend something. Take net neutrality for example. Vast amounts are spent in financing candidates who turn out to be against it (tens of millions of dollars or more). If a group of citizens put just $1 million in targetting the most blatant corporate shills by funding anti-neutrality opposition then they would likely get rid of a couple, and scare the hell out of other congressmen who are doing the same. You don't have to actively oppose every candidate, you just need to put the fear of consequences into them.

Re:the naivety is painful

[Anonymous Coward]

That's cute, "speak earnestly". You must not be paying attention.

The past few decades have proven unequivocally that money is the only way to shape policy. If you want money out of politics it's going to take vast sums of money to make that happen.

It very much appears that political dissent is not acceptable in the US, you get pepper-sprayed (or have your life ruined, whatever) for trying.

Re:the naivety is painful

[Anonymous Coward]

If you think 'a few seats' don't matter, you haven't been paying attention to the radical red-shift in the Republican party's stance after the Tea Party primaried them out of a few seats...

Re:the naivety is painful

[Registered Coward v2]

Really? You're going to end the corrupting influence of corporate money in politics by out-fundraising them?

Having money is the one thing corporations are good at, and they're really, really good at it. If your strategy hinges on using money as influence, you're always going to lose, because they are FAR better and more practiced at that game than you are.

While corporations have more money in total they still need to decide what to spend where. Pumping $2mill in one race; rather than spreading over many, can have a significant influence on voters. I wonder if there is a spending threshold where more money has greatly diminished returns in terms of voter impact. If that is the case; you don't need to outspend other interests just spend enough to have an impact.

The only way to advance this particular agenda is to exploit the strengths that we have which corporations don't. We can fill the streets with real people, we can make disruptive spectacles and speak earnestly about social problems. Unlike corporations, we don't need to hide behind spokespeople and PACs, because we have authenticity. We are genuinely concerned about the future of our democracy, and though corporations can try hard to simulate that concern, it's never as authentic as the real thing.

The MAYDAY PAC is like David trying to beat Goliath in a fist fight. Don't fight on his terms, use the sling, idiot!

\

More importantly, we have votes. If people took the time to actually vote in elections, including primaries, outside spending would have less of an impact since you wouldn't be able to rely on just getting your base out to vote but actually appeal to a broader range of voters.

Re:the naivety is painful

[Rob the Bold]

Having money is the one thing corporations are good at, and they're really, really good at it. If your strategy hinges on using money as influence, you're always going to lose, because they are FAR better and more practiced at that game than you are.

Then think like a corporation. Hire their best lobbyists and strategists away with better offers.

Re:the naivety is painful

[jwhitener]

This is a sling. It is using well targeted funds on small "under the radar" elections. The money won't be used to try to influence presidential races or big national senate seats.

Most small congressional district candidates spend very little (relatively speaking) on elections.

reform candidates

[rossdee]

Reform Party? Wasn't that Ross Perot's party ? Is he still around?

I think Jesse (the body) was part of that at one stage, but I don't think he is standing again. I would vote for him if he ran for Gov again.

Re:reform candidates

[Anonymous Coward]

I meant candidates who are for reform, not the Reform Party.

May Day????

[judoguy]

What does "get the money out of politics" mean? No one is allowed to tell people about their candidacy? The government would be the arbiter of election information? May Day indeed. Money is power. Politics is power. Anyone who thinks they will somehow remove money from politics is an idiot, or at best childlike.

All you can do is fight over *who* gets to wield it. At least now, bad as it is, I get to contribute to groups that represent my views, even if imperfectly. Seriously, with all the abuses of other moneyed interests,(mine, of course never abuse the system) no one has ever even tried to explain something better to me.

Just some adolescent rant about "getting the money out of politics".

Re:May Day????

[Nite_Hawk]

What does "get the money out of politics" mean?

IMHO, and in a very general sense, preventing things like this:

http://www.washingtonpost.com/...

This isn't directly related to Lessig's superpac, but it's part of a general trend where personal gain in politics trumps ethical conduct. It doesn't matter what the issue is (in this case health care, but it could be zoning issues, or tax subsidies, or anything). This is blatant corruption on both sides of the isle. It's almost as if it doesn't matter where the money comes from (unions, hollywood, large corporations, drug lords, etc) so long as the people in office can derive the maximum profit. That couldn't be right though right?

Re:May Day????

[NoImNotNineVolt]

This is the most US-centric post I've seen under this story.

Believe it or not, many places in the world have gotten money out of politics (to the same extent that MAYDAY PAC wants to). Perhaps this may be surprising to you, but it actually is possible. I can only hope that my other fellow Americans aren't as defeatist as you are.

I support MAYDAY-PAC and WOLF-PAC, because I'm unwilling to bend over and take it. I invite you to clench your asshole and join me in taking a stand against our ass-rapist masters.

Re:May Day????

[TubeSteak]

What does "get the money out of politics" mean?
[...]
Seriously, with all the abuses of other moneyed interests,(mine, of course never abuse the system) no one has ever even tried to explain something better to me.

It means a lot of things.
Just because you are ignorant doesn't meant there are no good answers.

Here's a few of them:
http://anticorruptionact.org/#act

Stop politicians from taking bribes
Prohibit members of Congress from soliciting and receiving contributions from any industry or entity they regulate, including those industries' lobbyists. Prohibit all fundraising during Congressional working hours.

Limit super PAC contributions and "coordination"
Require SuperPACs to abide by the same contribution limits as other political committees. Toughen rules regarding SuperPACs' and other groups' coordination with political campaigns and political parties.

Prevent job offers as bribes
Close the "revolving door" where elected representatives and senior staff sell off their legislative power for high-paying jobs. Stop them from negotiating jobs while in office and, once they leave, bar them from all lobbying activity for 5 years.

Call all people who lobby, lobbyists
Significantly expand the definition of and register all lobbyists to prevent influencers from skirting the rules.

Limit lobbyist donations
Limit the amount that lobbyists and their clients can contribute to federal candidates, political parties, and political committees to $500 per year and limit lobbyist fundraising for political campaigns. Federal contractors are already banned from contributing to campaigns: extend that ban to lobbyists, high-level executives, government relations employees, and PACs of federal government contractors.

End secret money
Mandate full transparency of all political money. Require any organization that spends $10,000 or more on advertisements to elect or defeat federal candidates to file a disclosure report online with the Federal Election Commission within 24 hours. List each of the donors who gave $10,000 or more to the organization to run such ads. This includes all PACs, 501c nonprofits, or other groups that engage in electioneering.

Empower all voters with a tax rebate
Build up the influence of voters by creating a biennial $100 Tax Rebate that they can use to make qualified contributions to federal candidates, political parties, and political committees. Flood elections with small-donor contributions that will offset the huge spenders. Candidates and political groups will only be eligible for these funds if they agree to a set of contribution limits: they will only accept money from small donors (giving $500 or less a year), other groups abiding by the limits, and the Tax Rebates themselves.

Disclose "bundling"
Require federal candidates to disclose the names of individuals who "bundle" contributions for the member of Congress or candidate, regardless of whether such individuals are registered lobbyists.

Enforce the rules
Strengthen the Federal Election Commission's independence and strengthen the House and Senate ethics enforcement processes. Provide federal prosecutors the additional tools necessary to combat corruption, and prohibit lobbyists who fail to properly register and disclose their activities from engaging in federal lobbying activities for a period of two years.

Re:May Day????

[aqui]

The issue is that the US has always been an oligarchy of the rich, realistically it came into being due to a tax revolt.
Money out of politics is not only possible, if you look else where in the world with functioning democracies and functioning electoral systems you can find examples:

In Germany
http://www.theatlantic.com/int...

In Canada (with legislated limits)
http://www.cbc.ca/news/politic...

or see Frances new laws limiting funding
http://www.loc.gov/law/help/ca...

If you believe that money is the only power then you have already been brainwashed to give up your democratic rights.

The average US Senate seat apparently costs ~ $7 million.

The entire Canadian Election spending per party ~ $21 million.

Obama spent well over $400 million for just his presidential campaign.

Think about what could be done with $379 million to address real problems in the US like education, healthcare etc....

The reason the rich are willing to waste their money is because they have too much of it (mainly because of tax law changes).
The average CEO salary in the US is now $10 million per year! Yet they pay less than 20% in taxes!

Even Warren Buffet thinks its time to tax the rich.
http://www.nytimes.com/2012/11...

If you did that the money that might otherwise be spent on political campaigns might actually do some good like funding education or public healthcare etc...

But then according to your brainwashing program the only power is money and any country that tries to democratically regulate the market (an artificial construct that only exists because of the enforcement of property laws) must a communist country (Canada) how else can we have publicly funded healthcare...
keep drinking the kool-aid, in the mean time we'll outlive you. Yes life expectancy is higher here, as is quality of life.

Re:May Day????

[wired_parrot]

At least now, bad as it is, I get to contribute to groups that represent my views, even if imperfectly. Seriously, with all the abuses of other moneyed interests,(mine, of course never abuse the system) no one has ever even tried to explain something better to me.

Here in Québec we have a campaign contribution limit of $100 per person, and a total campaign spending limit for each party of roughly $1 per elector in the province. This ensured that no one had a disproportionate financial impact in the election, while still allowing me to contribute to the group that I wished. Despite what may seem to be low limits, we had a healthy campaign, with a diverse number of parties. And considering that 4 different parties managed to elect representatives to the assembly, with a high rate of voter turnout, I'd say our democracy is faring better than in the U.S.

So yes, there are better models of campaign financing out there if the US was serious about campaign finance reform

Re:May Day????

[Anonymous Coward]

I wouldn't phrase it the same way, but yeah, perhaps if you make the money honest you will make the politics more honest. By that I mean tie it to some non-inflatable, non-fiat standard, have the government issue the currency and coinage, or else let private parties do it only on their own dime, and and not on the backs of the citizenry.

Just a thought. I favor such an approach over Lessig's, anyway. Granted his could lead to mine. At least in principle. All other things don't seem to be equal here, though. Hence my reservations.

Re:May Day????

[Anonymous Coward]

Like I said in another post, don't elect, draft. In a lottery. Divestiture. Sequestration. Expiration along with term is an attractive proposition, but perhaps not conducive to good decision-making, after all, not without some kind of an assessment, at least. How to do so fairly, of course, leads us back into politics. More work needed on that.

Re:May Day????

[LostInTaiwan]

That's very adolescent of of you to dismiss someone else's idea as adolescent rant while offering nothing of substance except support for status quo. Our system is broken. In addition to our military industrial complex, we also have a prison industrial complex, public sector union mafia, and the new kid on the block, private school public student loan pyramid scheme.

I heard Lawrence Lessig's keynote at SCALE 12X and he sounded like a pragmatic guy. During the typical after talk Q&A session when idealogical can lean a bit to the extremes, politely he kept to his believes and reminded everyone that our system is corrupt, not necessarily the politicians and that we've came a long way since the days where congressmen have safes in their capital office for the random bags of money that just appears.

I am fairly cynical of our entire political process, however I have donated to the Mayday's first round of funding and now I am contemplating selling some of my treasured 2A relics to help fund the second round. As much as I cling to my 2A relics, it's an illusion of power that keep us fat and lazy, sitting comfortably in our homes looking for that next purchase. At least Lessig is doing something to reform our corrupt and inept political system, that far more than anything accomplished with 2A relics in modern time.

I don't know if he will be successful or not, but at least he has a history of advancing our civl liberty causes and MAYDAY, despite the long odds, is one of the better ideas available today.

Re:May Day????

[kwbauer]

"Prohibit members of Congress from soliciting and receiving contributions from any industry or entity they regulate, including those industries' lobbyists. Prohibit all fundraising during Congressional working hours." but let them freely take money from the special interest groups clamoring for even more regulation of those industries. That's a recipe for success right there. 10 years and no more industry and then who will pay the bills.

Re:May Day????

[Kohath]

Believe it or not, many places in the world have gotten money out of politics...

North Korea and Cuba? Or were you thinking of other places? Please tell us where.

Perhaps this may be surprising to you, but it actually is possible. I can only hope that my other fellow Americans aren't as defeatist as you are.

Even if a few places have had good government for a few years, it's not normal. Good government has been extremely rare throughout history. It's not defeatist to understand and learn from history.

Re:May Day????

[kwbauer]

But we in the US still recognize that we have the right to speak in public about politics and to speak as much as we want. That is something you failed to get when mostly walking away from the crown.

Re:May Day????

[NoImNotNineVolt]

It is defeatist to simply accept the corrupt government we have today.

I like Lessig but this won't work

[Anonymous Coward]

People will ally with whoever is most powerful. Sure, he might get one or two into office. How long before they are quickly realigning themselves to get to the next level?

It is a system, this is a patch on a symptom

[Anonymous Coward]

In a system, you can't do just one thing. This 'fix' will have side-effects, including the need for candidates to raise more $, and so give more power to the suppliers of that $.

The problem is that there is power to be bought, and politics is the auction mechanism. The only thing that can effectively reduce the price, given political control of the system of justice, is reducing the power to be bought.

Trying to move America to the Left

[roccomaglio]

The name of the PAC is May Day, which is a pro union and pro leftist holiday. It is a prominent holiday in many socialist countries. I am not sure why that is a good pick for a supposed non-partisan PAC with a mission to end PAC money.

Re:Trying to move America to the Left

[Anonymous Coward]

MAYDAY (one word) is also widely known as a distress call.

Re:Trying to move America to the Left

[Anonymous Coward]

Shh, you're expecting a crazed right winger to know what words mean. Obviously those damn libroool Democrats went back in time and started Walpurgisnacht. I bet Saint Walpurga was a dirty communist, she wasn't even a Christian!

Re:Trying to move America to the Left

[Anonymous Coward]

Skip the 'union' and 'socialist' part and get to the heart of it: It's a day to honor the worker.

Re:Trying to move America to the Left

[JWW]

Exactly. A horrible name choice if you want to appear to be non-partisan.

I don't believe they are really heavily partisan, but their proposed reforms lean profoundly to the left.

I think in is entirely in the realm of possibility that if they were truly very effective in their goals we would see a tilt toward one party rule.

One party rule would, of course, be infinitely worse than having "money in politics". Cite: see the history of one party rule.

Re:Trying to move America to the Left

[amicusNYCL]

The name of the PAC is May Day, which is a pro union and pro leftist holiday. It is a prominent holiday in many socialist countries. I am not sure why that is a good pick for a supposed non-partisan PAC with a mission to end PAC money.

Really? You're not sure? You don't understand that mayday is an international distress call? The registered name of the organization is "Mayday PAC", not "May Day PAC". In some places it is stylized as "MAYDAY PAC". There is never a space after "May" as you wrote.

Re:Trying to move America to the Left

[amicusNYCL]

I think in is entirely in the realm of possibility that if they were truly very effective in their goals we would see a tilt toward one party rule.

I hate to break this to you pal, but we already have one party rule. You might think that distractions like gay marriage or healthcare or whatever else are the issues, but you're wrong. Those aren't the reasons that the people of Congress are there, those are the distractions to try and keep you divided from whoever you don't agree with on that issue.

The goal of Congress is to stay in power, regardless of which side they sit on. They're all there to help each other. The point of the PAC is to change that. If you don't agree with Mayday PAC, try WOLF-PAC.

Re:Trying to move America to the Left

[Anonymous Coward]

It's not even that. May Day celebrations are over a thousand years old, and are connected to the feast of Saint Walpurga, which was moved to May 1 to take over the heathen antics of the locals (much like how Christmas and Easter got to where they are now).

Re:Trying to move America to the Left

[Anonymous Coward]

A horrible name choice if you want to appear to be non-partisan.

Only to people who have no idea what Mayday means. Or who think that pagan rituals from around the 8th century have something to do with Democrats.

But hey, those people were all going to vote Republican anyway. And fuck nubile virgins dancing around a maypole. Dirty commies the whole lot!

Why is everbody against it now?

[iris-n]

I'm finding quite curious the contrast between the comments that appeared the first time this story was discussed in /. and now. Whereas in the first time the comments were balanced and generally positive, now most comments are violently against it. I wonder what caused this change. Perhaps now that it is clear that they are getting money and have a chance of making a difference the corporate shills have woken up?

Re:Why is everbody against it now?

[JWW]

It think its mostly because before the effort was very undefined.

Now they've stated their goals and they are all identical to the goals of the left.

I will not support or believe that this PAC is beneficial until they add the goal of term limits to their proposed reforms.

Its a far bigger factor in the problems of our government than campaign finance is.

Dream on.

[Anonymous Coward]

We can fill the streets with real people, we can make disruptive spectacles and speak earnestly about social problems.

Like Occupy Wall Street which failed? Naivety indeed.

There has not been any reforms. Wall Street is business as usual.

In the meantime, the OWS people were harrassed,, beaten, ridiculed in the media, and dispersed.

Americans are so brainwashed by the system that anyone pointing a finger at said system i sconsdiered to be a radical, leftist, Liberal, or some other term to dismiss them.

To be taken seriously, one must play by the corrupt rules to make it look like one is part of the system; otherwise, they will be dismissed. Do not forget, the people driving politics - the angry rable that gets all the attention (old people) - do NOT want any changes. They demand the status quo and any attempt to disrupt it will be met with fierce opposition. Why do you think that all issues are framed as "old timey values"?

I see this everyday. I hear the old people talking. And THEY are the ones running to the polls in Nov of this year. Their agenda - NOTHING to do with anyone's platform - it's all about preserving the status quo.

Re:Dream on.

[Destoo]

To be taken seriously, one must hit them where it hurts.

Here is why the Snowden story got so big. One single little facet of the whole "government is spying on us" thing.
One Program.
Bullrun.

"Because of Snowden, we now know that the listeners undertook to do what they repeatedly promised respectable expert opinion they would never do. They always said they would not attempt to break the crypto that secures the global financial system.
That was false."
"...attempting to break the encryption that holds the global financial industry together, it had also stolen the keys to as many vaults as possible. With this disclosure the NSA forfeited respectable opinion around the world. Their reckless endangerment of those who don't accept danger from the United States government was breathtaking."

The Occupy Wall Street was all fun and games until one bullet point item came up. (Delaware being a tax heaven for Congressmen). As soon as that point made the news, all of the police forces, in sync, shut everything down.

The PAC needs something as effective and dealdy, and keep their mouth shut about it until it's too late to go back.

Would have been used on Bush II and Obama

[raymorris]

If supporters had any recourse when candidates turned on them, such recourse would have been used on Bush Jr. and Obama.

This is why I steer clear of politicians who talk out of both sides of their mouth and try to avoid saying anything which might bother anyone - there's no telling what they'll actually do. I prefer someone like Chris Christie who says things that piss me off as well as things I agree with - it's pretty plain what he believes and what he intends to do. Whether or not you agree with his position, it's extremely clear what his position is.

Re:Would have been used on Bush II and Obama

[Anonymous Coward]

I agree with you. The late Paul Wellstone (MN) was the same way; I disagreed with him on almost every issue but he could be trusted to follow through on what he said. Far too rare a quality in politicians on both sides of the aisle.

Specifically, it means change. and hope.

[raymorris]

> They say they want "fundamental reform", but they won't be specific about the "reform" they're proposing. Without specifics, "reform" can mean anything (or nothing).

I think specifically it means "change". And "hope". Hope and change. Is that more clear for you?

re: naivety

[drew30319]

The MAYDAY PAC is like David trying to beat Goliath in a fist fight. Don't fight on his terms, use the sling, idiot!

I believe the idea is that the money raised by "real people" will be used differently than that raised by corporations. The PAC is the funding mechanism which will be used to consolidate and coordinate "real people" who want to positively affect change. In other words: this is a campaign to raise the money for a sling.

Outfund?

[Princeofcups]

The corporations can easily outspend this PAC with a small increase. On top of that, they are trying to buy corrupt politicians, who are just as likely to turn again when someone offers them better coke and prostitutes. I smell a get rich scheme, nothing more.

It's about getting information out.

[Anonymous Coward]

We have a significant population in the US that has Fox News on all day and their World view has been distorted by it and by Talk Radio.

Old people.

The old people in this country have been so brainwashed that they are using their significant political clout to screw everyone - including themselves.

I know. I see it everyday. And they won't listen to anyone who is not part of the establishment. Look at Occupy Wall Street. The Fox News brainwashed old people were all for the cops "handling" those "ungrateful lazy kids" and "getting them back to work".

The old people do not understand how college educated people could be out of work. They firmly beleive that having a degree - any degree - makes you employable. It was with great surpirse to them when I informed them that those days are long gone - if they even existed.

They lived and worked during the best times the US ever had and they still think they are still going on and have no understanding what their grandchildren's generation is going through. They just think they are lazy.

tl;dr: We need this PAC to inform the ignorant old people - 65 and older.

Re:It's about getting information out.

[Anonymous Coward]

Mod parent up! Though it's not just old people, many younger, ignorant people also suffer from the lack of mental capacity to realize they have been brainwashed. I've seen this firsthand with one of my best friends; right wing talk radio has literally turned him into a Neo Nazi, a historical revisionist, and a Holocaust denier. Those are the values that the right wing value, and they don't even deny it.

Re:It's about getting information out.

[kwbauer]

Since right-wing radio is nearly always synonymous with Rush Limbaugh, Sean Hannity, Glenn Beck, etc. I am having a hard time figuring out exactly what you are rambling on about with the Neo-Nazi and Holocaust denier talk. Not one of those have ever promoted Neo-Nazi, skinhead or KKK groups nor have any of them ever denied the Holocaust. However, every one of them have spend many hours talking about liberal politicians cosying up to foreign leaders who do routinely deny the Holocaust and do practice anti-Semitism. Maybe your friend was not actually listening to right-wing radio but was actually listening to Neo-Nazis and skinheads.

Seriously?

[asylumx]

From the text of one of the bills they support:

Sec. 101. Refundable tax credit for congressional House campaign contributions.

Seriously? This is literally trading tax dollars for campaign dollars. What the hell kind of reform is this? Even with the proposed $50 limit on the credit it's a bad idea -- and what good is $50 going to do, anyway?

Hope you're just trolling

[Anonymous Coward]

I sure hope you're just trolling, because your post is completely ridiculous.

And they won't listen to anyone who is not part of the establishment.

Who is "the establishment"? Would that be the major (non-Fox) news networks like CNN? Or perhaps the current US president and Senate majority party?

"The Fox News brainwashed old people were all for the cops "handling" those "ungrateful lazy kids" and "getting them back to work".

LOL! (That's pretty much all that needs to be said here.)

The old people do not understand how college educated people could be out of work. They firmly beleive that having a degree - any degree - makes you employable. It was with great surpirse to them when I informed them that those days are long gone - if they even existed.

So... you informed all old people? Or perhaps you just lectured an old person at hand who was polite enough to pretend that you were saying something important, and you interpreted such politeness as abject awe at the sharing of your wisdom which they had never heard before? See? It's fun to make generalizations about people you don't really know, and I can do it just as well as you can.

They lived and worked during the best times the US ever had

My grandma was a poor person during the Great Depression. This may come as a shock to you, but she didn't have a smartphone or a TV. In fact, she sometimes didn't have enough to eat. The wealth and technological advancement of the first world countries in general has accomplished something never before seen (at least on a large scale) in the history of the world until the late 20'th century -- our "poor people" today are often fat. Food for thought, no?

and they still think they are still going on and have no understanding what their grandchildren's generation is going through. They just think they are lazy.

I don't know whether all old people think you are lazy or not. But I am solidly of the opinion that you are intellectually lazy.

tl;dr: We need this PAC to inform the ignorant old people - 65 and older.

Correction -- nobody needs this PAC. However, the PAC needs naive people like you to throw their money at it.

Good Luck with that

[Anonymous Coward]

I'm managing a Congressional campaign for a first-time candidate and I can tell you it's all about fundraising. You raise some funds from friends and family to appear viable enough that others will think you have a shot at making it until November. Then you get their donations and go out again to ask for more. Then you go out and try to get an endorsement from whichever of the two major political parties your candidate is aligned with. The major parties won't even back you unless you raise tens of thousands of dollars. It's just like getting a mortgage, they won't give it to you unless you can prove that you don't need it. Once that happens you use their endorsement and funds to get more endorsements and more money from PACs to fund the campaign, with implied strings attached. Meanwhile the incumbent candidate is raking it in from lobbyists and special interest groups and can easily outspend you 100:1. Check out opensecrets.org and take a look who wins races, it's almost always the candidate who can get the most funds. MAYDAY PAC's FAQ says they will give the funds to candidates who can win races- that's not reform candidates, it's incumbents or party members entrenched the political machine. Even if you're registered to vote as a member of one of the major parties, you're still an outsider unless you've been a party apparatchik for many years. MAYDAY PAC would have to raise tens of millions of dollars to fund reform candidates against incumbents, and they'd have to be third party or NPA to affect any real change. Five million split five ways is a drop in the bucket.

No.

[Qbertino]

Really? You're going to end the corrupting influence of corporate money in politics by out-fundraising them?

No. You're going to get most of the people behind the unified cause of repairing the US electorial system. Big difference.
Them donating money is a secondary side effect. The technical part of what is required to change something. The first step is to get *all* of the 99% of US citizens of their lazy fat asses and actually be willing to do something to 'effing repair their broken system. The money-meter is just a gauge of that will to finally make a change that lasts. And I mean we, the people, making that change.

It's like in eastern German. When fat-cats say "This is how it goes." like they have been for decades and 99% say "Nope. Not anymore. Game's over. New rules." you have a peaceful revolution and the wall goes down the next day. It's really that easy.

Same here. If Lessig and his crew can get this show on the road and the 'effed up US electorial system repaired that would be really cool. And I see a real chance of that happening here.

You should all get behind this folks. You can do it. It's not that hard.
Keeping my fingers crossed for this SuperPAC.

My 2 cents.

term limits don't matter

[whistlingtony]

As long as we have money in politics, does it matter if the rep is named Alice, Bob, or Charlie? They all vote with the money anyway. They're basically interchangeable. We MUST get the money out of politics.

Re:term limits don't matter

[JWW]

The elephant in the room is that the money in politics really isn't campaign money.

The reason so much is being spent on campaigns now days is because so much is being spent by government.

There is an immense amount of power involved in generating TRILLIONS of dollars in tax revenue and borrowing BILLIONS more and then determining what that should be spent on.

That power is desired mightily, which is what is driving the campaign spending.

Think of it this way. Every member in congress is voting on bills to spend ORDERS OF MAGNITUDE more money each year than they have control over in their campaign funds.

The campaign funds are just the ante to get in the game of playing with the much bigger piles of money.

Re:term limits don't matter

[baldass_newbie]

Bingo. If there are millions of dollars in subsidies at stake or a multi-million dollar firm, paying a bunch of lawyers to take a bunch of lawyer-politicians to dinner and on vacations.

Force Congress to work securely from their respective state houses (make the lobbyists travel if they want to influence) and simplify the tax code (a recommendation of the President's Simpson-Bowles commission which only the GOP has embraced) and you'll go a long way to limit influence.

Skepticism and Negativity

[rabbin]

The last submission was met with positive/encouraging comments and a little skepticism, but now we have individuals overwhelmingly complaining that this is a "democrat PAC", a "leftist cause", or that it is somehow infringing on free speech rights. This is all absurd. A "democrat PAC" would not give you the option of limiting your pledge only to Republican candidates. The disgust with the influence of money in politics is not a "leftist" thing--there is just a minority trying to make it another left vs right thing by instilling the usual tribalistic hatred (most of the right hates money in politics just as much as the left does and knows how badly they are screwed by it). And the reforms the Mayday PAC supports do not infringe on free speech rights unless you believe there should be no equality to free speech--that the size of one's wealth should make one's voice much more likely to be heard.

As for the skepticism of whether or not it will work (assuming you think it's a problem in the first place--if not, enjoy your plutocracy):

First, what do you propose as an alternative? Unless you're advocating for a revolution, the solution needs to work within the system itself. Americans are very concerned about the influence of wealth in politics, but in order to transform that concern into a change in policy there need to be promising alternative candidates running on that issue (the current selection of candidates are quite reticent about it and rarely act on it because they know it threatens their re-election). Candidates that would actually like to remove the corrupting influence of wealth in politics cannot compete because one needs a lot of money to run a meaningful campaign (and the reforms supported by Mayday give such candidates a means based on support at local levels--e.g. matching funds systems). Therefore, these candidates rarely get any media attention and thus very few even know they exist or have any confidence in their success. What Mayday is trying to do is give candidates running on an issue that many Americans are concerned about a fighting chance within a system whose design is antithetical to resolving that issue. I'm all ears to your alternative solutions.

Second, while the skepticism is warranted, it is redundant. There is no solution to this problem that won't be unbelievably difficult in practice--Lessig is calling it a "moonshot" for a reason. If you look at each solution in isolation, all of them seem unreasonable and they always will until one of them by chance stumbles upon success. But this does not mean you should not act. Some solutions are less unreasonable than others and I believe Mayday PAC is one of them because it is one of the few that are working with the constraints and realities of the system in mind. And as a "kickstarter" it has been designed to reduce the risk to you as a supporter--the worst that can happen is that they raise $12 million dollars, the candidates they support are duds, and you lose $20. In the other negative case, you get to keep your $20.

But given the pent up disgust with politicians being unresponsive to the concerns of everyone except the large donors, I think Americans will respond very well to compelling candidates that make the issue of money in politics a top priority (and yes, "compelling," among other things, means well-financed--even if indirectly through a small dollar funded Super PAC) and whose financial backing does not compel them to act otherwise.

Careful what you ask for

[Anonymous Coward]

I don't doubt that Lessig et al. can achieve their goal, or that the FSF's lawyer does not know how to hoist the system with its own petard. I just question whether this initiative will effect any real change and not just lock in the outcomes and vast beauracracies of 100+ years of statism, socialism, and black budgets designed to make "capitalism" (definitely not "free enterprise") palatable to the electorate.

What outcomes other than structural changes in campaign financing does Lessig expect his effort to achieve? If it turns out to be a bad idea, can it easily be reversed? Where is the benefit to the little guy here, who putatively will have as much say as a bigshot, but who will still have to deal with crushing regulation and taxation? How does Lessig expect political inertia not to crush anyone with big capital behind them, regardless, assuming his initiative succeeds, and then is effective? How does this effort compare in any of these regards to alternatives to winner-take-all elections.

In short, has this effort really been thought through, and what are the likely agendas that would be served by it? Think I'll have to pass on it for now.

Re:Careful what you ask for

[Anonymous Coward]

Uh, sorry, Eben.....No, wait, I was just testing you guys. Yeah, that's it.

So far from true as to be laughable

[mpercy]

"The vast, vast majority of them inherited their wealth"

cnbc.com: Forbes says that 30 percent of the Forbes 400 members inherited their wealth and the remaining 70 percent are entirely “self-made.” And even by United for a Fair Economy's calculations, the number of "self-made" rich is rising. In 1997, the group calculated that 50 percent of the Forbes list inherited all or part of their fortune.

wikipedia: Sixteen percent of millionaires inherited their fortunes. Forty-seven percent of millionaires are business owners. Twenty-three percent of the world's millionaires got that way through paid work, consisting mostly of skilled professionals or managers.

cato institute: Roughly 80 percent of millionaires in America are the first generation of their family to be rich. They didn’t inherit their wealth; they earned it. How? According to a recent survey of the top 1 percent of American earners, slightly less than 14 percent were involved in banking or finance. Roughly a third were entrepreneurs or managers of nonfinancial businesses. Nearly 16 percent were doctors or other medical professionals. Lawyers made up slightly more than 8 percent, and engineers, scientists and computer professionals another 6.6 percent. Sports and entertainment figures — the folks flying in on their private jets to express solidarity with Occupy Wall Street — composed almost 2 percent. By and large, the wealthy have worked hard for their money. NYU sociologist Dalton Conley says that “higher-income folks work more hours than lower-wage earners do.”

Re:So far from true as to be laughable

[Anonymous Coward]

the remaining 70 percent are entirely âoeself-made.â

Define "self made".

Did they receive a public education? Did their parents help them pay for school? Did they receive any benefits at all from society?

Or are you suggesting these people, without the benefit of thousands of years of society, bring themselves up from nothing?

Because they sure as heck benefited from their parent societies to give them a chance to become "self made". And now they've all turned around and said "lower my taxes, screw the poor over even more, and I can continue to be 'self-made' and the rest of these poor bastards can go screw themselves".

Ever since Reagan there's been this notion that by making the wealthy pay less towards society, this would magically make everyone else better off. And, strangely, in this same period, the amount of concentration of money has moved upwards into the wealthy, and completely away from the rest of us.

But let's not pretend that "self made" means you did it without any of the benefits of the society around them. Only now they've re-written their own history and are pretending all of those benefits they had aren't things they should help pay for.

Re:So far from true as to be laughable

[kwbauer]

Ahhh, here we have the stereotypical liberal... present him with the facts and he still can't see the truth. Many of the wealthiest on the above mentioned lists were born into poverty and worked their way out. Did they receive a "free" public education? Probably, but so does pretty much everyone else in the US.

Re: So far from true as to be laughable

[ScottDoody]

Millionaires - small businessmen - are not the problem, nor are they the beneficiaries of dynastic wealth. Let's see the figures for how many BILLIONAIRES are self-made. Yup, thought so.

Re: So far from true as to be laughable

[mpercy]

Yeah, cause the Forbes 400, where 30% inherited, doesn't represent billionaires.

Sure 30% is a fairly large percent, but on the relative scale I use, 30% doesn't rate "vast, vast majority" status. And sure, people like Bill Gates had a good head start, coming from a well-to-do family, but he didn't inherit Microsoft and the billions he made from it.

--------------

One of the papers presented at the recent annual meeting of the American Economic Association focused on the 400 richest individuals in the country ranked by Forbes magazine. The paper, "Family, Education, and Sources of Wealth Among the Richest Americans, 1982—2012," by Chicago Booth Professor Steven Neil Kaplan and Joshua Rauh of Stanford, found that fewer of those who made it on to the Forbes 400 list in recent years grew up wealthy than in previous decades.

Some 32 percent of the Forbes 400 in 2011 belonged to very rich families, down from 60 percent in 1982. On the other hand, the share of those in the Forbes 400 who didn't grow up wealthy but had some money in the family—the equivalent of the upper middle class—rose by the about same amount. The proportion of those in the list who grew up poor or had little wealth remained constant at roughly 20 percent throughout the same period.

Most individuals on the Forbes 400 list did not inherit the family business but rather made their own fortune. Kaplan and Rauh found that 69 percent of those on the list in 2011 started their own business, compared with only 40 percent in 1982. In other words, there are fewer people on the Forbes 400 list who came from an affluent background and eventually took over the family business, such as brothers David and Charles Koch (Koch Industries) and the Walton siblings (Wal-Mart), and more self-made people such as Bill Gates (Microsoft), Warren Buffet (Berkshire Hathaway), Philip Knight (Nike), and Stephen Schwarzman (Blackstone Group), who had an upper middle-class upbringing and eventually built their own successful companies.

[http://www.chicagobooth.edu/capideas/magazine/summer-2013/billionaires-self-made]

Re: So far from true as to be laughable

[mpercy]

The world currently contains 2,170 billionaires — and you’re (probably) not one them, at least not yet. They have a combined net worth of $6.5 trillion, an amount larger than the entire GDP of every country in the world except China and the United States. The number of billionaires increased by ten between June 2012 and June 2013, says a study conducted by UBS and Wealth-X, a consultancy service. Their total wealth grew over that period by 5.3 percent.

That growth, though, was uneven. The European billionaire population fell from 795 in 2012 to 766 in 2013 (even as their total wealth rose 3.7 percent from $2,045 billion to $2,120 billion.) Asia, however, picked up eighteen new billionaires to reach a grand total of 508 while North America’s most exclusive club welcomed eleven new members this year, bringing its membership to 552. (Although with 214 few individuals, North America’s billionaires are worth $38 million more than all of Europe’s super-rich combined.)

Although billionaires have a mean worth of $3 billion each, most just scrape into the club. Some 1,175 people are worth between $1 billion and $2 billion. Only four, Bill Gates, Carlos Slim, Warren Buffet and Amancio Ortega, founder of clothing chain Zara, qualify as “mega-billionaires” with total wealth topping $50 billion each.

Each of those mega-billionaires is self-made, an exceptional figure. Overall, 60 percent of the world’s billionaires made their fortunes themselves. Twenty percent inherited their wealth and another twenty percent inherited a fortune and used it to make another.

[http://www.geekpreneur.com/most-billionaires-are-self-made]

May Day?

[leereyno]

Why on earth would anyone use a holiday celebrated by socialists as their marketing buzzword?

Knowing absolutely NOTHING about this effort, I'm instantly opposed to it on this basis alone.

This is like calling your new computer system the CyberStalin. Anyone who would do so is either ignorant, crazy, or evil.

Divide and Conquer

[ThatsNotPudding]

I've seen inklings of a smear campaign against this movement already, trying to exploit the same stupid red meat issues (abortion, gun control, taxes) to alienate potential supporters that would otherwise emphatically agree that corporations are not people and should no longer control our government.

I do wish them luck. They're gonna need it.

Maybe not a panacea, but...

[Anonymous Coward]

I've often wondered if officials should not be elected, but drafted, for a randomly selected period of service, divested of all holdings and assets, sequestered, and then shot or hung once their term has expired.

whaaaat?

[slashmydots]

You mean if just about 100% of Americans are behind an idea and then someone funds that idea and puts up a candidate that stands for that idea and will actually do something about it in elected, then people fund it like crazy? What a concept! I mean seriously, all the people in office right now that are thinking they can do anything they want like vote for more NSA surveillance or openly take bribes from companies for net neutrality votes need a big, fat YOU'RE FIRED from the voters. That will remind them what's really what.

So what? Does Apple spend that cash on politics?

[mpercy]

The unions sure do...Opensecrets.org tracks political spending. In the top 25 organizations donating to candidates over the last few years, unions dominate the list and tilt almost exclusively Democrat. On the other hand, the few corporations in the top 25 tend to donate fairly evenly, favoring the ruling party.

Heavy Hitters: Top All-Time Donors, 1989-2014

This list includes the organizations that have historically qualified as "heavy hitters" — groups that lobby and spend big, with large sums sent to candidates, parties and leadership PACs. Individuals and organizations have been able to make extremely large donations to outside spending groups in the last few years.

Rank Organization Total '89-'14 Dem% Repub%
1 ActBlue
$102,669,137 99% 0%
2 American Fedn of State, County & Municipal Employees
$61,819,929 80% 1%
3 National Education Assn
$58,988,290 56% 4%
4 AT&T Inc
$57,026,335 41% 57%
5 National Assn of Realtors
$55,559,528 41% 44%
6 Intl Brotherhood of Electrical Workers
$45,572,151 91% 2%
7 Goldman Sachs
$45,270,985 53% 44%
8 United Auto Workers
$41,923,428 71% 0%
9 Carpenters & Joiners Union
$41,577,299 71% 9%
10 Service Employees International Union
$38,711,298 84% 2%
11 Laborers Union
$38,401,420 83% 7%
12 American Federation of Teachers
$37,271,825 89% 0%
13 Communications Workers of America
$36,472,773 86% 0%
14 Teamsters Union
$36,355,957 88% 5%
15 JPMorgan Chase

The revolution has been coopted

[sgt_doom]

Sorry, folks, but it is sooo easy to predict this will all amount to nothing, once Lawrence Lessig's name is mentioned.

Talk about your professional misdirection specialist, scion of wealth, the guy who couldn't be bothered to tell Aaron Swartz that federal prosecutors had dropped one of the punishments against Aaron they were pushing for --- namely forbidding Aaron from ever going online again, and then Aaron committed suicide!

Lawrence Lessig, the dood that attended the second-to-the-last Bilderberger forum, with senior executives of Stratfor and Palintir Technology --- you gotta be kidding me, if anyone takes anything serious about Lessig, he's the guy to coopt everything.

For some real news:

http://www.wired.com/2014/06/f...

Great points, xappax, which is exactly ...

[sgt_doom]

...why they brought forth Lessig, the son of wealth and one of Wall Street's professional misdirection specialists, to do this.

You, in your superb analytical thinking, see right through this sham for what it is, while others, will be fooled and misled by a Lessig, or a Jeremy Rifkin, or a Kevin Philips, etc., etc., etc.

The revolution will not be foundation funded.

Your ignorance is their power.

Aqui says .....

[sgt_doom]

.... even Warren Buffett thinks it's time to tax the rich --- sorry, Charlie, once again you've demonstrated you are one of the easily led sheeple.

Buffett's Berkshire Hathaway has been in federal tax court for years, fighting not to pay the zillions they owe in federal taxes.

Buffett was chair of Salomon Brothers, one of the premier Wall Street firms which lobbied for the adoption of what he calls "economic weapons of mass destruction" --- credit derivatives --- which Buffett then hired lobbyists to lobby against any oversight of them in the so-called Dodd-Frank economic reform legislation. You be all confused, dood!

Set corporate tax rate to 0%

[mpercy]

According to the CBO: "A corporation may write its check to the Internal Revenue Service for payment of the corporate income tax, but that money must come from somewhere: from reduced returns to investors in the company, lower wages to its workers, or higher prices that consumers pay for the products the company produces."

Corporate income taxes account for about $250-$200B in annual revenue. Compliance costs for business to determine how much tax they owe is also estimated at about $200-$300B annually. In other words, it costs corporations almost as much or maybe slightly more to determine how much they owe as they actually owe. Not to mention the inordinate amount of effort that goes into determining how to run the business when various tax considerations come into play (e.g. when to buy equipment, or hiring that 50th employee) instead of simply doing what's best for the business for business reasons rather than tax reasons. And virtually all of these taxes and compliance costs get passed on directly to consumers/labor/shareholders.

A huge amount of "corporate welfare" comes in the form of special tax breaks--eliminate the tax breaks and you eliminate the corporate welfare and the tens of millions of dollars of lobbyist money showered on politicians as they try to seek those special tax breaks.

Apart from the economic shot in the arm freeing up about $600B every year in the economy would be--and the increase tax revenues resulting from growth--the "cost" is largely recaptured as the dollars flow into personal income taxes (wages, dividends). Further, with the specter of double taxation removed, we could reset the CG rates to normal income rates.

The point relative the size of government here is that you take away a huge incentive for corporations to lobby for special tax treatment. That money flows out of the political system. Sure, corporations may find other things to lobby for, but special tax treatment seems to be #1 on the hit parade.

P.S. This will never happen because too many people think we need to punish corporations with taxes.

Bullshit

[pablo_max]

I call bullshit. (not to you personally, but the idea)
Money is NOT the issue. It has nothing at all to do with the problem.

The problem, my dear fellows, is accountability. Mainly the fact that the US in a general sense, has none. There are zero consequences for these guys when they break the law. In fact, there is only incentive for them to do it.

The answer? Simple.
Public service should be considered public service, regardless whether you "join" the military or attempt to "join" the congress. What happens in the military if you do something which is intentionally against the interest of your country? Best case, you are kicked out with a dishonorable discharge. Worst case, you're shot in the head.

Why should congress be different? They are in much more of a position to harm the entire country than a soldier. Yet, they do not swear allegiance. They are not required to live by any code? Why?
Why are these ass hats allowed to literally destroy America and yet nothing happens.

They should be made to live according to the UCMJ. When they fuck up, they are out. When the fuck up on purpose for money are power, they are shot.

 

Re: Bullshit

[ScottDoody]

Pablo, this is AWESOME. I never thought about it this way. I bet if crooked Congressmen faced a firing squad, primaries - especially in the South - would be a bit less crowded!

Scrooge McDuck

[mpercy]

Lots and lots of people imagine the wealthy hoarding their cash, a la McDuck's pool of gold coins (ever see the Family Guy were Peter tries that?!). They cannot imagine any positive impact deriving from people having wealth.

Of course, if *they* were to win $100M in the lottery, that'd be OK.

It's nice to be liked
But it's better by far to get paid
I know that most of the friends that I have don't really see it
That way
But if you could give 'em each one wish
How much do you wanna bet?
They'd wish success for themselves and their friends and
that would include lots of money
[Liz Phair: Shitloads of Money]

Re: So what? Does Apple spend that cash on politic

[ScottDoody]

OK, but whose interests - how many individuals - does Goldman-Sachs represent? A handful of obscenely wealthy investment bankers? Versus any of the unions listed, which politics aside, represent a much larger group of people representing a MUCH larger proportion of American society? The fact these two are listed together should be an alarm bell ...

Fat chance.

[Ungrounded Lightning]

The Anti-Corruption Act would go a long way towards helping. Lobbying is the major way that corporations influence legislation, and it needs to be completely stopped. It needs to be criminalized.

It will just get struck down, like every other anti-lobbying and campaign funding measure that has finally gotten to the courts.

This is because lobbying is a Constitutional Right. It is called "Free Speech" and "Petitioning the Government for redress of Greviances".

People do NOT lose their free speech and (especially) political activity rights when they are acting in a group, regardless of whether the group is a club, a political movement, or a business.

But such measures, once passed, can do enormous harm before they finally make it to court and being struck (after which another is passed and the cycle repeats). The rich and connected can hire lawyers to find their way through the latest maze of regulations, fill out the bales of forms correctly, defend themselves in court if challenged and bring suits to finally get the laws overturned. Meanwhile we little guys are hosed.

These laws may be well intentioned. Or they may be intended. from the start, to paralyze grass roots efforts while appearing to block undue influence by the rich. But they always give the advantage to big-money and big-connections and always penalize us little guys.

Re:Fat chance.

[amicusNYCL]

I'm not convinced that a corporation giving a politician a bucket of money in exchange for their vote really qualifies as petitioning the government for a redress of grievances. Something tells me that is not what the founding fathers meant, it is not in the spirit of the constitution.