Steve Wozniak Endorses Lessig's Mayday Super PAC

Funksaw writes: Steve Wozniak, co-found of Apple Computer, has come out to endorse Lawrence Lessig's MAYDAY PAC in an animated audio recording. Mayday.US, (formerly MayOne.US) is Lessig's crowd-funded (citizen-funded!), kick-started Super PAC to end all Super PACs. In the video, Wozniak points out that we're never going to get anywhere on issues important to the Internet community and technology advocates if we don't fix the root cause of corruption. The video can be found at the Mayday PAC's new landing page, "theInternetHasASuperPAC.com."

Comments

"The Internet"

[Stormy Dragon]

I seem to have missed the election where everyone on the internet elected Steve Wozniak and Lawrence Lessig to speak for us. The Internet does not have a super pac. A handful of people with a particular view on how the internet should be run have a super pac. To characterize themselves as the only legitimate voice on the matter is the height of arrogance.

Re:"The Internet"

[Anonymous Coward]

I seem to have missed the election where everyone on the internet elected Steve Wozniak and Lawrence Lessig to speak for us.

It was on the anniversary of the day all melanin-rich Americans elected Jesse Jackson as one of their voices.

Re:"The Internet"

[presidenteloco]

I seem to have missed the part where everyone on the Internet is a US citizen.

But as a proud resident of Lower Banwidthistan, I am happy to contribute as requested.

Re:"The Internet"

[amicusNYCL]

Here's the thing though: a lot of people want a lot of changes to happen. Everyone doesn't agree on all of the changes, sure, but a lot of people want to see fundamental changes to our political system, starting with removing the corrupting influence of money. A lot of people want to support something moving in that direction, but what are our options right now? Really, who would you support in order to effect the kind of change that you want to see in politics? What Lessig did was step up and lead. He might not be the leader that everyone wants, but he's actually stepped up to lead an effort. There are a lot of people who want to get behind change in politics, but very few people leading the way. Mayday is a high-profile example with the goal of leading the effort to reform our political system. You don't need to agree 100% with what they say, but if you want to see change then this is a good way to hopefully get that process started. Other groups include things like WOLF-PAC, although it is much less visible. And if you don't like anything out there now, then start your own group and get the word out. Anything to create the kinds of changes that all of us need in order to have our political system work for us instead of the other way around.

Re:"The Internet"

[TheSync]

starting with removing the corrupting influence of money

I have news for you, the corrupting influence of money will remain AS LONG AS POLITICIANS HAVE POWER. Money will "route around" such "campaign finance reforms". That is why all the campaign finance reforms put in place since the 1970's have consistently achieved nothing (except for allowing incumbents to hold on to power more strongly).

Politicians are always answerable at the ballot box. If you vote for politicians who promise to REMOVE POWER FROM GOVERNMENT, you will REMOVE THE POTENTIAL FOR CORRUPTION.

Most of our "Internet problems" are last mile problems. These are not national problems. You need to show up to your local government meetings and work on last mile access. I suggest local government reduce barriers to entries for new local ISPs (my suggestion). Or perhaps local governments should build open FTTH (which of course would be open to corruption to the contractors who build it, but perhaps that is better). But local is where to deal with this issue.

Re:"The Internet"

[wolfhead]

A handful of people with a particular view on how the internet should be run have a super pac.

That completely misses the point of what the super pac is for, which is campaign finance reform. That's it. Nothing else. What I think Woz is saying is that any intelligent political debate about the internet and technology policies can't happen in the current political system, and campaign finance reform is the best bet at changing that system.

Re:"The Internet"

[amicusNYCL]

I have news for you, the corrupting influence of money will remain AS LONG AS POLITICIANS HAVE POWER.

That is true, that's why campaign finance reform is not a magic bullet. Another necessary change is term limits for all of Congress, so that we can replace career politicians with civilian public servants, as it was meant to be. Legislators and representatives should come out of the private sector to serve their term, and then leave and return to the private sector. We don't need people like Mitch McConnell spending their entire career in politics while they amass a personal fortune of tens of millions of dollars.

Re:"The Internet"

[ADRA]

That all may be true, or it may not. Taking power away from the fed means that that vacant space is going to:
  1. State / local governments
  2. Organized groups with special interests
  3. The populace

Odds are #3 will have exactly as much say as they've always had, and there's more money to be had be groups 1/2 if the fed shrivles up. My opinion is that if you want power, you need to trade it off with harsh real panalties for violating the trust put upon you. The problem is the people with the most to lose from the scheme are the only ones who have the power to enact it (barring armed revolt). Have fun!

Re:"The Internet"

[CrimsonAvenger]

a lot of people want to see fundamental changes to our political system, starting with removing the corrupting influence of money.

So, you're going to get rid of the corrupting influence of money by...spending money to buy politicians?

That's what PACs do, you know - they buy politicians to counter the other guy's bought politicians....

Re:"The Internet"

[amicusNYCL]

I wanted to add something about the solution through local politics. That is an important step. We the people have the right and ability to change the federal government through constitutional amendments. We can restrict Congress ourselves by using an Article V convention of the states. We can ratify an amendment starting at the state level in order to effect the kind of change that Congress would not make on their own. Instead of counting on Congress to limit their own power, we can do it for them.

Re:"The Internet"

[tepples]

The problem is the people with the most to lose from the scheme are the only ones who have the power to enact it (barring armed revolt).

How so? Three-fourths of the states can amend the Constitution with no help from the Congress.

Re:"The Internet"

[amicusNYCL]

That's right, Mayday's goal is to fund and elect politicians committed to campaign finance reform. The way our political system is set up is that the politicians with the most money get elected, so if we are going to change anything, including campaign finance laws, we need to buy the politicians to do it (or pass a constitutional amendment via an Article V convention).

Re:"The Internet"

[Charliemopps]

To characterize themselves as the only legitimate voice on the matter is the height of arrogance.

They didn't, and they're not. It's an ADVERTISEMENT.
Things need to be simplified in an advertisement to get the general point across. It's up to you to not jump to idiotic conclusions and go out and do research on your own.

If you want to be pedantic, go do it somewhere else.
This is an important issue, and we all need to speak as one.
If you don't want to join the chorus, then get the hell out.
If I'm trying to perform CPR, I don't need some asshole (you) standing behind me telling me I'm doing it wrong, I'm not a doctor, etc... At least I'm doing something, unlike you.
If you don't want to help, just leave.

Re:"The Internet"

[Attila Dimedici]

We've had campaign finance reform in the past. It made matters worse, not better. So what makes you think that this time will be different?

Re:"The Internet"

[riverat1]

Sometimes you have to fight fire with fire. Just because you have to work within the current system doesn't mean you can't work to change it.

Re:"The Internet"

[ShanghaiBill]

Another necessary change is term limits for all of Congress

Plenty of states and local governments have implemented term limits. There is NO evidence that this has led to better government. By filling government with inexperienced people, you end up with no institutional memory of past mistakes, and legislators that rely more than ever on the advice and guidance of lobbyists.

Re:"The Internet"

[amicusNYCL]

"Campaign finance reform" in the past included things like Citizens United, which directly contributes to the problems we have now. The current brand of reform is aimed at getting rid of things like that. We are trying to correct the problems that were made in the past.

And I don't know if it will work, but I want to try. One thing that I am not willing to do is to sit here and do nothing, expecting that other people are going to fix the problem.

Re:"The Internet"

[amicusNYCL]

Laws are not set in stone, not even the constitution. If a law gets passed that is ineffective or harmful, it can be repealed. I would rather have decades of non-politician legislators making our laws than another 4 years of the current assholes getting paid by anyone with money to screw over everyone else. It needs to end.

Re:"The Internet"

[ShanghaiBill]

The way our political system is set up is that the politicians with the most money get elected

Eric Cantor had WAY more money than David Brat. Meg Whitman spent more on her campaign than any other non-presidential candidate. She lost. Money certainly helps, but plenty of elections are won by the less well funded candidate. It is difficult to precisely determine the influence of money on elections, because not only does the money help the candidate get the message out, but donors looking for influence are more likely to donate to someone that was already popular.

Re:"The Internet"

[amicusNYCL]

Yeah, I made a blanket statement that isn't true 100% of the time. It sounds like Cantor's base didn't think he was representing them anymore. I'd love to see the results of that election happen nationwide, frankly I'd love to see every single incumbent lose.

Re:"The Internet"

[EverlastingPhelps]

More importantly, it isn't an attempt to get MONEY out of politics, it is an attempt to get non-establishment MEDIA money out of politics.

All this does is turn politics back over to Time Warner, Fox, Disney, etc, who own the news stations and papers, and out of the hands of the People.

No thanks.

"We don't want your money in politics... but would you like to buy our news station?"

Re:"The Internet"

[Stormy Dragon]

Don't forget that Citizen's United was ultimately about whether you need the government's permission to make a movie about a politician. Do you really want the government deciding what movies we're allowed to see? I also notice people screaming about Campaign Finance Reform are never demanding regulation for, say, Michael Moore or Jon Stewart. How come it's okay for Miramax and Viacom to pollute politics with their corrupting corporate money?

Re:"The Internet"

[Duhavid]

Campaign finance laws demonstrably have not achieved nothing, or the monied persons would not have bothered to weaken these laws, and would not be seeking to weaken them further.

Politicians are patently not answerable at the ballot box, by and large, or so many unpopular bits of legislation would not be passing.

If you remove too much power from the government, you will create a power vacuum. Someone will step in and fill it. Warlord or (maybe even well meaning) revolutionary. The government needs to be answerable to us, and it never will be as long as it can be bought.

Re:"The Internet"

[Stormy Dragon]

The lack of self-awareness here is hilarious. You deny they're claiming to be the only legitimate voice for the internet followed immediately by multiple demands that anyone who disagrees "get the hell out" because you're the only legitimate voice for the internet.

We don't all need to speak as one. YOU need us all to speak as one because then you don't actually have to convince people your view point is right.

Re:"The Internet"

[Jane Q. Public]

I seem to have missed the election where everyone on the internet elected Steve Wozniak and Lawrence Lessig to speak for us. The Internet does not have a super pac. A handful of people with a particular view on how the internet should be run have a super pac. To characterize themselves as the only legitimate voice on the matter is the height of arrogance.

Not just that. I've been saying for a long time that Lessig's idea may be a short-term boon but a long-term disaster. Why? Because he thinks "the problem" is that corporations have too much "money influence" on government, and the people too little.

I have argued with him that the problem is NOT that "corporations influence with too much money, and the people too little"... the real problem, the underlying problem, is big money in politics, period.

By giving money to "peoples' voices", he may be helping to solve the corporate issues, in a small way. But he's not solving the root problem at all... in fact he's just making it worse by throwing even more money at government, to "buy" more influence.

Keep in mind that Lessig also thought Obama was "The Answer", and fought hard for his election. Now he's trying to fight what he helped to build, and doing that wrong, too.

Re:"The Internet"

[Duhavid]

Can you get 3/4's of the politicians from the states to enact such legislation?

They are also benefiting from this arrangement, so, I don't think it will fly.

Re:"The Internet"

[Duhavid]

Get started.

Re:"The Internet"

[Darinbob]

If power is removed from government, some other entities will gain that power and become the new evil that must be fought. Most of these fights aren't about removing power, but in taking power or moving it around. Ie, diminish government's power in order to increase corporate power, which may be a bigger problem due to lack of accountability to citizens.

Re:"The Internet"

[amicusNYCL]

Do you really want the government deciding what movies we're allowed to see?

That would not be constitutional, I'm not worried about that.

How come it's okay for Miramax and Viacom to pollute politics with their corrupting corporate money?

It's not.

Re:"The Internet"

[amicusNYCL]

Indeed. Several states have already approved their applications for a convention. We need 34 states to approve them and start the convention.

Re:"The Internet"

[Duhavid]

If the large pocketed donors are looking for influence and continue to donate they are either insane or effective.

Neither sounds like a good reason to continue a bad habit.
All people, wealthy and poor should have equal redress to their government.
Right now, the wealthy, effectively, are the only ones who have much say.

Re:"The Internet"

[Duhavid]

How can people help?

Re:"The Internet"

[Krishnoid]

Another necessary change is term limits for all of Congress, so that we can replace career politicians with civilian public servants, as it was meant to be.

We can do that now, by voting, and in my awkwardly-worded opinion, improved communication among the masses is causing unprecedented changes along these lines.

Re:"The Internet"

[amicusNYCL]

Keep in mind that Lessig also thought Obama was "The Answer", and fought hard for his election.

To be fair, a lot of people did. I voted for him the first time because he claimed that he was going to repeal the Patriot Act and close Guantanamo Bay. He did neither of those, so I didn't vote for him again, and a lot of people felt the same way. Obama had around 5 million more votes in 2008 than he did in 2012.

Re:"The Internet"

[sgt_doom]

But Lessig is not the one to lead, he is that wolf in sheeple's clothing the misinformed will follow. Find out his comments before the Federalist Society (which he has appeared at many, many times) and at the Bilderberger form he attended with those execs from Stratfor and Palintir Technology.

Re:"The Internet"

[sgt_doom]

Aaaah....thanx, another intelligent comment!

Re:"The Internet"

[amicusNYCL]

Wolf-PAC has a petition on their site, plus this page with information about volunteering or donating. Volunteering would include actually meeting with local legislators to pitch the case for a convention and try and get a local resolution passed supporting it, so that eventually the state would approve its application for the convention.

The Convention Of States project is also actively seeking a convention. At least 3 states so far have approved their applications.

Re:"The Internet"

[bigpat]

That is true, that's why campaign finance reform is not a magic bullet. Another necessary change is term limits for all of Congress, so that we can replace career politicians with civilian public servants, as it was meant to be.

I might agree with you if you also term limited other public officials and even low or mid level bureaucrats. The real power in Washington is the Bureaucracy which can outlast any single administration or any 8 years of Congress. The entrenched interests are not limited to the elected politicians, but all the individuals that make careers out of government money, government contracts and playing the system. It can take years or decades to fathom just part of the Federal Bureaucracy, let alone be in a position to make decisions over regulations, oversight and spending.

Re:"The Internet"

[dgatwood]

Meg Whitman spent more on her campaign than any other non-presidential candidate. She lost. Money certainly helps, but plenty of elections are won by the less well funded candidate.

Ironically, she was too well known to win in California. To be precise, most Californians had actually used eBay by the time she ran, and nobody wanted someone who could create that kind of train wreck to be in charge of the entire state. :-)

Re:"The Internet"

[Attila Dimedici]

How do you get that Citizens United was part of campaign finance reform? Citizens United was a case where the Supreme Court found that the last "campaign finance reform" law over-reached and violated the Constitution. You may not know if this will work, but I've seen this same song and dance played before, so I know that it will not work. None of the people who cry about the money in politics want to do what it takes to actually fix the problem. The only way to get money out of politics is to reduce the power of government. If government has less power, the return on investment for buying access to politicians goes down and people with money will always choose to spend their money where they get the best return on investment. Right now, if you don't invest in politics, your return on investment for everything else approaches zero (or negative).

Re:"The Internet"

[amicusNYCL]

Citizens United was a case where the Supreme Court found that the last "campaign finance reform" law over-reached and violated the Constitution.

And you would disagree if I said that Citizens United brought that case against the FEC because Citizens United wanted to reform the campaign finance rules?

Re:"The Internet"

[AthanasiusKircher]

By filling government with inexperienced people, you end up with no institutional memory of past mistakes, and legislators that rely more than ever on the advice and guidance of lobbyists.

"By filling government with experienced people [incumbents], you end up with no voter memory of past mistakes [because people just keep voting for familiar names, regardless of record], and legislators that rely more than ever on the advice and guidance of lobbyists."

There, FTFY.

Here's the problem with this debate -- the vast majority of the government is filled with more-or-less permanent employees. Underneath almost every executive official or legislator or department head that is elected or appointed every few years are often hundreds or thousands of permanent staff who keep everything running from day-to-day.

So, the idea that if you forced the few elected officials at the very top of the chain to be changed every few years, then you'd end up with "no institutional memory"? That's ridiculous. Most of the people working at any given agency can easily tell the new bosses what worked in the past and what didn't... as they do now every single time an election occurs. (And where do you think most lobbyists come from? Previous staff members who used to work in government....)

Even for minor legislative bodies without a significant permanent underlying bureaucracy to tell them what to do, term limits generally still stagger things enough that you won't ever have a completely new legislature all coming in at once. So, those who have been around will help those who are new, like any job.

Now -- the question is whether we do gain anything by periodically forcing a turnover. I'd say the evidence suggests it won't make a difference either way in most cases. No term limits, and you risk having perpetual underachievers who do just enough not to annoy anyone and keep getting elected just because voters have heard their names. Term limits, and you might force out experienced members who might be good serving for many years or decades.

All in all, it's a crapshoot.

Re:"The Internet"

[TheSync]

Politicians are patently not answerable at the ballot box, by and large, or so many unpopular bits of legislation would not be passing.

I regularly vote against politicians who pass legislation I don't agree with. Why everyone else is sheep and votes for the incumbents is unclear to me!

Re:"The Internet"

[TheSync]

If power is removed from government, some other entities will gain that power and become the new evil that must be fought.

I believe there are occasional market externalities that need to be dealt with via government. However the problem is that most people feel everything is a market externality that needs to be dealt with via government, thus government has too much power.

What is keeping YOU from competing with your local cable provider on higher-quality Internet connectivity? If you could prove to investors that your offering would be profitable, and they would invest in you because rich people like making money.

But then you would have to go to your local cable franchise board (set up because people feel that cable service is a "natural monopoly" that is not amenable to market forces, which is BS), and then you would have to fight against government power to be able to legally offer a service that people want.

Re:"The Internet"

[Attila Dimedici]

Citizen's United brought the case because they believed, correctly, that campaign finance rules, as they existed at that time, were unconstitutional. Citizen's United did not want to "reform" campaign finance rules. They wanted to overturn unconstitutional campaign finance rules. This Mayday Super PAC wants to do more of what gave us the situation we have now.
Citizens United was a group of people who pooled their money in order to campaign against Hillary Clinton. The campaign finance reform said that they could not do so. So they went to court. Their win means that other groups of people may do the same. Their loss would have meant that only those already wealthy would have a say in political campaigns because only the wealthy would have enough money to launch coordinated campaigns to win or defeat electoral contests. Those with less money would have been forbidden from pooling their money in order to do so.

Re:"The Internet"

[Duhavid]

Because they don't bother to think and to do the research.
Voters, in general, have "their team", and the believe whatever comes out of the politicians mouths.
Sheep is an apt description.
Plato had his philosopher king concept. A good one, IIRC. But we all need to be that in a functioning Democracy.

Re:"The Internet"

[Darinbob]

I might argue that right now government does NOT have the power, instead the people who have purchased the politicians may be the ones with power. The political parties are losing their grip on power too, for example the Republican leadership in the house are often unable to keep the rank and file pointed in one direction or to give consistent answers about how theyre going to vote. Whether or not you think that's good or bad it does point to power being diminished, or possibly transferred to other branches of government, or to political action committees, or to populist movements, etc.

Having to show that something is competitive I think is not always the right way. That may be the free-market laissez-faire view of things, but big business only cares about money and never about the actual customers. Sometimes it may be better to reduce the profitability if it helps external factors, which can also help the markets by allowing smaller players to take part. The big players right now seem to be taking the stance that the customers will pay whatever is demanded of them so that it is safe to screw them over.

Cable can be a natural monopoly, that is indeed the problem here. If we have 20 cable suppliers in a small town, do you want twenty different cables wired out to every home? The cable companies in the past did not cooperate with sharing the wires and are not doing so today. The only real sharing we have is with legacy telephone systems after AT&T breakup. You can get someone like Comcast with enough power that they never have to cooperate with a competitor, and it takes a company the size of Google to even begin to encroach on the market regions, at which point the armies of lobbyists are unleashed to preserve the status quo.

Re:"The Internet"

[sumdumass]

Look up mark levin's liberty amendments and see if any of those will work for you

Re:"The Internet"

[sumdumass]

That's sort of stupid. Slaves were exploited because they were feclared below human and only white slaves could regain it. This tiered set od classes came about after a bunch of slaves attemped to escape in some virginia town and headed to florida.

Slaves were exploited not because they had no money but because they were property

Re:"The Internet"

[Sciath]

Ralph Nader for President. Oh wait, that already failed miserably because American voters are too stupid to know when they are being hoodwinked by the powers that be. Who above said democracy is the problem? They might be correct in the sense that Americans don't see any harm in being stupid, not thinking independently and with critical eyes and being plagued with apathy. *You keep what you kill." In other words, you get what you deserve.

Re:"The Internet"

[argStyopa]

The choice is:
- term limits, and a relatively fresh crop of legislators with little to no experience bumbling along while a class of essentially-permanent bureaucrat mandarins run things because they actually understand how all the shit works

or

- no term limits, and a permaclass of legislators who can be the target of massive donor investment because they know how to work the system, get things done, and have long, long times in office to accomplish it. The flip side is that they can at least run the country, aside from the bit that they're skimming for themselves.

Ether a bumbling government, or a corrupt one?

I'll take bumbling, because corrupt has gotten so greedy that they aren't really even performing any of the basic functions of government.

I rather believe that the Founding Fathers made this choice clear - they assumed that people were venal and corruptible, and a regular changeover at the top was critical to preventing *exactly* the sort of sui generis nobility that we seem to have.

Re:"The Internet"

[Kevoco]

I seem to have missed when there is an "us". However, The Internet is a real thing and "we" all use it in one way or another. If you cannot get behind the idea of mayday.us, then long live the status quo, but don't be ranting about how the man is screwing you over when you spend your time bent over and spreading.

Re:"The Internet"

[pr0fessor]

Many candidates would end up doing time in the trenches of local and state government, I'm not so sure you can say everyone would be inexperienced if there was a limited term for congress.

Funding options:

[Forbo]

On the site, it asks "Who to fund?" and gives the options "Whatever Helps", "Democrats Only", and "Republicans Only".

Their FAQ states: "In 2014, our objective is to win seats on the basis of reform, and to show that we can win seats on the basis of reform. We don’t see any independent candidates on the federal level who could win this election cycle. Spending our donors money to support independent candidates doesn’t advance our objective."

Whoa whoa whoa... what? Supporting candidates who have advocated election and campaign finance reform as part of their agenda "doesn't advance our objective"?

Well, boy, I certainly feel better about funding this now!

Re:Funding options:

[amicusNYCL]

Supporting a candidate who will not get elected anyway will not advance their objective.

Re:Funding options:

[GlennC]

So I can support either Kang or Kodos?

Here, take my money! </sarcasm>

Re:Funding options:

[sexconker]

McDonalds had pizza. http://money.ca.msn.com/saving...

Re:Funding options:

[niado]

Spoken like a true Win^H^H^H Loser

I think the word you are looking for is "pragmatist".

Nothing new to see here.

[TaxSlave]

It's couched in all kinds of nice geek speak, but basically this is a PAC being created for one goal, campaign finance reform. As I do not believe that campaign finance reform should be used as a method to limit the speech of others, i'm out of this one. Sorry, Woz, not gonna be on your side of this fight. "Campaign finance reform" as a term used today is an attempt to stop grass-roots individuals such as those who funded this PAC from being able to donate in the future to organizations that support their own beliefs. Only those who can afford to pay for political ads personally will be able to play, and those who can't won't be able to band together as they do today.

Re:Nothing new to see here.

[SteveWoz]

Thanks. I understand and appreciate where you are coming from.

As a founder of the EFF, I do stand up for the small consumers vs. the wealthy and powerful. There is no perfect solution.

Re:Nothing new to see here.

[JWW]

Correct. Plus if campaign finance reform is achieved and campaign speech becomes subject to severe limits, then incumbents will hold a massive and largely unassailable power to dominate campaigns over newcomers.

And with incumbency being a root cause to many of the problems in Washington, I won't support this PAC either until they make term limits a core part of the reforms they are calling for.

Re:Nothing new to see here.

[amicusNYCL]

Because ordinary people have so much say today in elections, don't we?

Here is the reality: 196 people contributed 80% of super PAC contributions in the 2012 election cycle. Your grass-roots efforts are pretty meaningless when they can only raise a quarter of the financial influence of 196 people. The goal of campaign finance reform is to level that playing field, so that the opinions of ordinary people are weighted more against the opinions of the super wealthy. Sheldon Adelson does not deserve to have a larger say in who gets elected than I do, it doesn't matter how much money he has.

"I'm against very wealthy people attempting to or influencing elections... But as long as it's doable I'm going to do it."

Re:Nothing new to see here.

[amicusNYCL]

Thanks for supporting Mayday, there isn't a whole lot of time left but it looks like around $300,000 more has been contributed since yesterday. I hope the momentum can continue.

Re:Nothing new to see here.

[ADRA]

That's an easy one too. Set caps on campaign spending or set limits on the amount of TV/radio based ad time that can be spent on a campaigner. That would very quickly set a more balanced playing field for having people over the top bombarded with the message. It still allows for street signs, internet bombardment, etc.. but those are also generally grass roots in nature, so it may actually benefit people getting elected where they may not have been recognized prior.

Re:Nothing new to see here.

[CrimsonAvenger]

Set caps on campaign spending or set limits on the amount of TV/radio based ad time that can be spent on a campaigner.

So, you advocate censoring the newspapers, TV news, etc? Because there's nothing to stop an incumbent from getting publicity during an electoral cycle just by doing his job and making the news.

Note that ALL spending limits favor the incumbent. HE/SHE has easy access to all sorts of free publicity (propose a popular bill to get free publicity, for instance) that the challenger can't match.

Re:Nothing new to see here.

[mu51c10rd]

I certainly appreciate this venture. While I disagree with the idea of SuperPAC's and wish campaign finance reform did not take a political backseat...this is fighting fire with fire. Thank you.

Re:Nothing new to see here.

[roccomaglio]

This is to say nothing of the large number of sub $100 donations that required just a name and address. There is no verification of this micro donations. If you want to give a candidate a million dollars that does not seem to be a problem as long as you donate under $100 at a time. Rocco

Re:Nothing new to see here.

[LessThanObvious]

The unfortunate part is that $5 million isn't going to change anything. I surely support any effort to reform campaign finance and undermine the political influence of megalomaniacs like the Koch brothers. $5 million delivered into the right hands could get a bill introduced, but the only way it will work is if our representatives truly believe that not one of them who votes no will be reelected.

Re:Nothing new to see here.

[sgt_doom]

Plus 10,000 points, good citizen!

Re:Nothing new to see here.

[Duhavid]

Why the jump from spending caps to censoring?

Can you see that no spending caps is much more "censoring", for a much larger group of people?

Re:Nothing new to see here.

[dgatwood]

Because there's nothing to stop an incumbent from getting publicity during an electoral cycle just by doing his job and making the news.

Actually, there is, and it is enshrined in communications law, but thirty years of weak, ineffectual FCC commissioners has mostly gutted it, between the removal of the fairness doctrine in 1987 and the consistent failure to enforce the equal time rule....

Re:Nothing new to see here.

[dgatwood]

Sorry, but that's etymologically incorrect. Mayday (with no space) is derived from French "m'aidez", meaning "Help me". It is an internationally recognized distress call that dates back almost a hundred years. The fact that socialists latched onto the preexisting "May Day" holiday (which dates back thousands of years) and turned it into the Eurasian equivalent of Labor Day results in an unfortunate name collision.

Re:Nothing new to see here.

[Em Adespoton]

Woz is like me -- he lurked on here for years before he finally broke down in 2008 and got an account. Luckily SteveWoz was still available at the time :D

Re:Nothing new to see here.

[JWW]

You think the Fairness Doctrine would have prevented incumbents from having an advantage?!!?

That's rich.

The leading factor in taking out incumbents has been, like it or not, the Tea Party. The Tea Party is largely fuled by and supported by talk radio. The same talk radio that would't exist if the "Fairness Doctrine" were still in place.

It wasn't until after the "Fairness Doctrine" was removed that we could truly see and realize how horrible and awful an impact it had on free speech and expression in this country.

Re:Nothing new to see here.

[Lije Baley]

Hmm, your id looks more like a 2008 model than his.

Re:Nothing new to see here.

[dale.furno]

Yeah, all my favourites were taken too.

Re:Nothing new to see here.

[dale.furno]

Befittingly French.

Re:Nothing new to see here.

[EmagGeek]

Why is class warfare a mission of the EFF?

the internet doesnt know what a superpac is

[nimbius]

The real power of a superPAC is its recurring ability to fund numerous candidates on a yearly basis during elections in order to build a substantial political concensus on an ideology or legislative policy the PAC members want. this PAC cannot be the next NyanCat, Doge, or Kony2012, and must persist and be funded for more than a decade to produce any meaningful change. It also doesnt factor in things like closed primaries and gerrymandered districts, for which no amount of PAC cash will change. Finally theres the issue of this PAC existing as a live wire.

expect and prepare for every candidate endorsed and successfully elected by this PAC to receive major criticism if not outright condemnation from every news network in america. It is, after all, designed to deprive their commercial sponsors of the ability to purchase an election. Expect every single form of media in the american household to deride Mayday PAC and its candidates as unamerican restriction of the first amendment (as it applies to corporations.) Expect commercial television airtime to be difficult to purchase, and dont count on endorsing a candidate for the republican party who routinely shill for big oil and shun everything from climate change to renewable energy. And even if thye seem to stand a chance of winning, expect the rules to change a-la rand paul in the republican party to ensure absolutely, positively no possibility of ever being seated in office. dont expect the nuclear option of disclosing PAC donors to be off the table as it would only just confirm what everyone already knows about existing pac's while serving to further denegrade yours. Expect 'walking dead' lifer politicians like John McCain to insist a lack of everything from competence to experience and military service in regard to your reform candidate(s).

Re:the internet doesnt know what a superpac is

[aaaaaaargh!]

Apparently yes. I went to their site, read the FAQ, and still have no particularly lucid idea of what a Super PAC might be, let alone a PAC. Perhaps I should look it up on Wikipedia, but I wonder whether the founders of this campaign do not overestimate the general political education level of their fellow compatriots.

Anyway, it seems to have something to do with buying politicians, which apparently is legal in the US.

Re:the internet doesnt know what a superpac is

[jfengel]

You are absolutely right about the way Super PACs work. Real change comes only from a concerted, long-term effort. Campaign finance reform is going to be a very hard sell, not just because of entrenched interests but also because it's easier to get people to agree to "something should be done" than "let us do this particular thing". It will take a steady, well-thought out effort.

I'm slightly less cynical about the ability to get media. The media sell air space, and they don't much care to whom they sell it. Capitalists will happily sell you the rope to hang them with. They do so because (a) they don't really believe you'll hang them, and (b) they know that if they don't, somebody else will. Their success won't impact this quarter's bottom line, or even next year's, and they're simply not going to worry about anything further afield than that. Too many other things change too quickly for them to forego cash on the barrelhead.

Thank goodness for Citizens United

[dave3548]

Otherwise we'd have a hard time creating our own superpac!

Re:Thank goodness for Citizens United

[jfengel]

Super PACs predated Citizen's United by some time; it's just that the term wasn't coined until then. People had been doing it for a while, including the group after which the decision is named. CU just made it legally certain and thus increased its popularity.

Term limits and the revolving door

[tepples]

I thought term limits contributed to the so-called "revolving door" by guaranteeing that a legislator who finishes his term can spend 12 months preparing to jump into a position with a big company to lobby his old buddies in the legislature. Chris Dodd of the MPAA anyone?

Re:Term limits and the revolving door

[amicusNYCL]

Ideally financial reform would also affect the ability of lobbyists to influence politicians. They could get a job wherever they want, but they wouldn't be able to buy politicians.

There are a lot of changes we need. Changes to campaign financing, lobbying, and term limits are all necessary. Changes to some of those areas might not be very effective without changes to the others.

Re:Term limits and the revolving door

[Sciath]

Term limits may solve that problem. If you're only in Congress for 4 or 8 years at the most, depending on whether you're a representative or a senator, then 1. There'd be so many people jockeying for private sector positions afterward the market would be flooded with them. 2. The relatively short terms would not qualify any one person as a political "expert" and would not have sufficient time to establish close relationships with private industry. It also wouldn't hurt to have 100% publicly funded campaigns also, in which everyone started out with equal amount of funding and let the individual's ideas influence the public's vote as opposed to who can buy the most airtime.

They're missing the root cause of the root cause

[XxtraLarGe]

Instead of trying to get rid of the money causing the corruption, why not get rid of the power that attracts the money that causes the corruption?

PAC defined

[tepples]

A PAC is a political action committee, and a "super PAC" is a PAC that makes independent expenditures in favor of a particular candidate without coordinating with donating to the candidate's campaign organization.

And then when we elect that politician...

[Dwedit]

"Cast it into the fire! Destroy it!"
"No."
And he kept the corrupt political system of big money. It should have ended that day, but evil was allowed to endure. There's no strength left in the world of Men. They're scattered, divided, leaderless.

Re:And then when we elect that politician...

[Em Adespoton]

"Cast it into the fire! Destroy it!"
"No."

Who gets to wade in and bite off their fingers only to get pushed into the fire? Has to be someone who was fully corrupted by the system years ago.

Billions and billions

[Mister Liberty]

of dollars for each of Lessig's and Wozniak's millions.
So therefore, gentlemen, I wish you a stroke of good fortune.
Color me supportive though sceptic.

This will stop nothing

[FuzzNugget]

Sorry to be so cynical of what know are noble goals, but how exactly is being complicit in the very cause of political corruption supposed to end political corruption?

The extraction of wealth through massive and long-term fraud, the extreme deterioration of the middle class and degree of political corruption with impunity has become so immense in the last few decades... makes this effort a laughable piss-ant by comparison. Incredibly powerful interests with huge political influence will end this by snapping a finger the moment they perceive it as a threat.

The only way to win a game rigged against you is not to play. I understand that "not playing" means something pretty scary and undesirable, but I don't know if there's any other option left.

Re:This will stop nothing

[Anonymous Coward]

> The only way to win a game rigged against you is not to play.

This is not a movie about global thermonuclear war, real life can't be meaningfully reduced to a sound-bite.

The system is not 100% rigged against us, it has slowly been moved in that direction with the implicit consent of people like yourself who have said that it is impossible to fight that drift. Now some people are working to move it in the other direction, don't shit on us, just get out of the way.

Fight fire with? [Re:"The Internet"]

[Geoffrey.landis]

Sometimes you have to fight fire with fire...

But actually, most of the time, it makes more sense to fight fire with water.

Re:Fight fire with? [Re:"The Internet"]

[Duhavid]

Yes, but sometimes, firemen, in a brush fire, will set fire to burnable things in the path of the fire in a controlled way as a fire break.

Re: Well, this certainly should kill PAC corruptio

[Anonymous Coward]

You seem to be under the impression that the only solution worth pursing is one that will solve everything all at once forever. I, however, will gladly fight on some more, forever and take my victories where I can get them.

As they say, 'perfectionism is the enemy of progress.'

Fix political corruption for $5 mil?

[John.Banister]

In what municipality?

Major source of corruption is Tax Code not PACs

[perpenso]

But then what will they call the new things that secretly do the same damn thing and spring up in their place? Shouldn't we have a catchier label ready now?

To get rid of the major source of political corruption in the U.S. we need to rewrite the tax codes. The U.S. Tax Code is probably the biggest vehicle by which U.S. politicians reward their friends and interfere with their enemies.

No credits, no deductions, ... A rate is defined, you pay exactly that rate. Obviously these rates would be much lower than they currently are, however they can be designed using the average effective rates paid so that there is no revenue loss for the government.

Re:Major source of corruption is Tax Code not PACs

[WheezyJoe]

To get rid of the major source of political corruption in the U.S. we need to rewrite the tax codes.

In order for "we" to rewrite the tax codes, better people need to be elected to Congress and state legislatures. Today, to a great extent, that means PACs, because PACs raise the money for campaigns that make the difference between someone wanting to get elected and someone having a real chance of getting elected.

The weak link of democracy is... democracy. First, the voting public needs to know who you are, and second, the voting public needs to get off their asses and vote. Seriously. There's a mid-term election coming up... pay attention to the turn-out.

"We" will continue to elect puppets and pawns, owned by and obligated to the "secret" donors to the PACs (and who will continue to twist the tax code for their benefit), until "we" start coming out in sufficient numbers and elect other people, and thus embarrass all the "secret" donors who sent money to the PACs but got no return on their "investment".

Re:Major source of corruption is Tax Code not PACs

[perpenso]

To avoid redundancy let me refer you to my other posts in this discussion, "Votes not money controls politicians", http://slashdot.org/comments.p..., and "Party Loyalty is Political Apathy", http://slashdot.org/comments.p....

Re:Major source of corruption is Tax Code not PACs

[Jawnn]

The "flat tax" idea is seductive in it's simplicity, but extremely unfair in actual practice. For those living at the lowest income levels, n% is a meaningful bite out of their income. As you climb above those levels, n% approaches pocket change. The progressive tax tables in place today were conceived with the notion that every tax payer should feel the burden more or less equally. It worked well for a long time. Then the notion that "rich people need to be rewarded so that they do the right thing" began to gain favor, so the Reagan Tax Cuts came about, and things have gone downhill ever since. A flat tax is not the solution. A true progressive tax, at realistic rates and without any built in "favors" is what is needed.

Re:Major source of corruption is Tax Code not PACs

[Entropius]

So what you're saying is that it's unfair to accomplish what you consider to be proper policy objectives of taxation using a tax code with one free parameter.

Fine, then. Make it two free parameters: a common one is "your tax is X% of your income minus Y". The point is that every free parameter in the tax code is an opportunity for corruption, and currently we have about eleventy billion.

You write:

A true progressive tax, at realistic rates and without any built in "favors" is what is needed.

The problem is that so long as politicians are able to build in favors, they will. If you rely on the honor of politicians to prevent corruption you're doomed.

If you have the X%+Y tax system outlined above, there are no special favors; for a given revenue level there is in fact only one degree of freedom, and then it's just the standard rich-vs-poor fight, which is far less vulnerable to capture by special interests than our current behemoth.

Re:Major source of corruption is Tax Code not PACs

[perpenso]

The "flat tax" idea is seductive in it's simplicity, but extremely unfair in actual practice.

I did not say a "flat tax", I said "A rate is defined". That rate may be a function of income, i.e. progressive.

For those living at the lowest income levels, n% is a meaningful bite out of their income.

That is a bit of a red herring. Most of the serious flat tax advocates agree it should phase in at the poverty line, so it does have a progressive nature near the poverty line and would only be flat at some point above the poverty line.

As you climb above those levels, n% approaches pocket change.

That is mathematical nonsense. 15% of 100 thousand is 15 thousand. 15% of 100 million is 15 million.

This "pocket change" notion is nonsense. The wealthy would notice a 15% hit just like those of more moderate means. The motivation for higher tax rates for the wealthy had some basis in logic because they wealthy had greater resources to engineer their finances to take advantage of various loopholes. Basically the higher rate was trying to get the effective tax rate to a reasonable point. However with no credits and no deductions and no loopholes you don't need inflated rates at the higher end to collect a reasonable effective rate.

The progressive tax tables in place today were conceived with the notion that every tax payer should feel the burden more or less equally.

And a flat rate, above some point, would in fact result in an absolutely equal burden.

It worked well for a long time. Then the notion that "rich people need to be rewarded so that they do the right thing" began to gain favor, so the Reagan Tax Cuts came about, and things have gone downhill ever since.

That is a political myth. Tax cuts were not the problem. Uncontrolled spending and the exportation of middle class jobs have caused the downhill slide. The notion that the rich need to be penalized is as logically flawed as the notion that the rich need to be rewarded.

Re:Major source of corruption is Tax Code not PACs

[Ichijo]

Better yet, eliminate taxes wherever feasible. For example, replace gas taxes with congestion tolls (and stop widening freeways until they start paying for themselves 100%, up from 65%, out of said tolls and other user fees), reduce the social security tax by replacing social security retirement benefits for everyone with a safety net only for those who need it, and make fire departments bill the property's insurance company for fire response.

Re:Major source of corruption is Tax Code not PACs

[perpenso]

It also nails people on things like medical deductions, double taxed state taxes, etc.

That is a red herring. Most serious flat tax proposals are not literally flat. They phase in at the poverty line, the tax doesn't truly become "flat" until some point well above the poverty line. With the Affordable Health Care Act out-of-pocket medical costs are capped. and if the federal government goes flat presumably the states could as well, etc. The voter driven movement pushing along the "flat" tax would effect both federal and state levels of government.

The saner thing is to nuke long term cap gains. If you realize income, tax it as income, doesn't matter where it came from.

That is what a "flat" tax would do.

Re:Major source of corruption is Tax Code not PACs

[hendrips]

It's a common misconception to think so, but a flat income tax would either 1) not tax dividends and capital gains at all, or 2) would not tax business income at the corporate level. If both were taxed, then the tax rate on corporate income would be doubled (actually not quite doubled, it would be 2*tax_rate - tax_rate^2) when all other sources of income were taxed only once.

In fact, that's basically what happens now in the U.S.; we tax business income at 35% but capital gains and dividends have a very low tax rate (15% iirc) with many exemptions - you don't have to pay if you buy through an IRA, if you make less than ~$70,000 per year, if you run a retirement fund, etc.

Re:Major source of corruption is Tax Code not PACs

[Alef]

One reason why a progressive tax system is a good thing is the following: In general, you can get a higher appreciation on your assets if you have more of them. In other words, the richer you are, the faster you can increase your relative wealth. If you set up the differential equations for this, you will notice that the system is unstable, and will asymptotically reach a point where very few own almost everything. A progressive tax system counterbalances this effect, so that there can be an stable equilibrium where some are richer and some are poorer.

Incidentally, this kind of concentration of wealth to a small elite is exactly what we have been seeing in recent decades. Because in practice, the tax systems in most countries aren't really progressive all the way up to the top. If you are rich enough, you either get your income through other means than a salary, which is then usually associated with a lower tax rate, or you escape taxes through more creative measures, like moving your assets to a tax haven.

Re:Major source of corruption is Tax Code not PACs

[perpenso]

It's a common misconception to think so ...

Until we have legislation that could plausibly pass the legislature there is no misconception. What you describe below is just one possibility, and other possibilities can address such issues.

... but a flat income tax would either 1) not tax dividends and capital gains at all, or 2) would not tax business income at the corporate level. If both were taxed, then the tax rate on corporate income would be doubled ...

Or dividends could be treated as an expense, like employee payroll, which is analogous since its sort of an owner payroll.

As for capitol gains, if the gain is retained by the company it is taxed. If the gain is passed on to shareholders it is not taxed at the company level but is taxed at the individual level since it was expensed.

Or in a more general fashion there is "pass through" taxation. One entity declares that certain taxable income is passed through to a different approved taxpayer (employee, shareholder, ...) where taxation will occur. Much like in a single member LLC (where there is only one owner/shareholder) where the LLC declares that its taxable income appears on the tax return of another.

Re:Major source of corruption is Tax Code not PACs

[Alef]

Obviously, you could say the same thing for any well defined tax curve, more progressive ones as well. It doesn't have to be X%+Y. What you're really saying is that you want all incomes to be treated the same way, and that there should be no deductions.

The reality isn't going to be that simple; for starters you need to define income in some way that is both fair and can't be evaded easily. And if you are too strict about everything being level, you have lost a whole range of financial instruments that are sometimes useful for fine-tuning a market (e.g. internalising externalities like the cost of pollution). But the principle of making the system as simple and transparent as possible I can agree to.

Re:Major source of corruption is Tax Code not PACs

[Kevoco]

How do you think the tax code go that way? The tax code (along with other corporate friendly, constituent unfriendly) and timelimited legislation is the prize that the lobbyists seek. Lobbyists spend pennies to get back dollars for their corporate clients. You should really familiarize yourself with the rootstriker and mayday concepts and then the idea will make more sense.

Re:Major source of corruption is Tax Code not PACs

[Jawnn]

As you climb above those levels, n% approaches pocket change.

That is mathematical nonsense. 15% of 100 thousand is 15 thousand. 15% of 100 million is 15 million. This "pocket change" notion is nonsense. The wealthy would notice a 15% hit just like those of more moderate means.

No. They would not. Basic living expenses, common to all incomes, do not change. The guy who's left with $85 million after taxes doesn't have to worry about choosing between paying the heating bill or feeding his kids. Ever.
Jeezuz. How is this not patently fucking obvious?

Re:Major source of corruption is Tax Code not PACs

[perpenso]

As you climb above those levels, n% approaches pocket change.

That is mathematical nonsense. 15% of 100 thousand is 15 thousand. 15% of 100 million is 15 million. This "pocket change" notion is nonsense. The wealthy would notice a 15% hit just like those of more moderate means.

No. They would not. Basic living expenses, common to all incomes, do not change. The guy who's left with $85 million after taxes doesn't have to worry about choosing between paying the heating bill or feeding his kids. Ever. Jeezuz. How is this not patently fucking obvious?

Neither is the guy making $100,000, that's nearly twice the average median income in the US. Is that not obvious to you?

Before you attempt to introduce your straw man re-read older posts where I wrote that the tax is not literally flat. It phases in at the poverty line and does not become flat until some point well above it.

Re:money != speech

[Geoffrey.landis]

Bah. You're assuming that money is the same as speech.

Money is an amplifier for a given person's speech, so a given person can buy a bullhorn & hang out down at the street corner, or by ads on hundreds of TV channels.

So what we have instead of 'limiting' the speech of others is the ability for those with the most money to be able to drown out all other voices until only theirs is heard....

So, what you're saying is, anybody can speak, but money gives people the ability to be heard.

MayOne/Mayday donor, checking in

[MetalliQaZ]

I contributed to the first round that raised $1 million, and I contributed to the ongoing second round that is trying (with less success) to raise $5 million.

Please contribute if you can. As Lawrence said in his TED talk: your favorite issue may be the more important thing to fix, but this has to be the FIRST thing we fix. There can be no meaningful reform as long as the big money has the only voice in politics.

I understand how silly it sounds. Fight money in politics by raising money? How could that ever work? But just remember that we have to get our foot in the door somehow. We need the same lobbyists to get through to the people who need to hear us.

Lawrence is a good guy, a smart person, and incredibly passionate about his cause. He's someone we can get behind. Please donate if you can. Remember they don't take your money unless they make their goal.

Net neutrality, patent reform, etc. They all start here

Re:MayOne/Mayday donor, checking in

[T.E.D.]

I understand how silly it sounds. Fight money in politics by raising money? How could that ever work?

I have heard folks say that, or other such noise about it being "hypocritical", but frankly that attitude is beyond stupid.

Politics is like a game of Great Dalmudi. If you hate the current rules, you can change them, but you have to win a hand using those sucky rules first. Refusing to utilize a rule you don't like is not just counter-productive, but actively stupid.

Re:MayOne/Mayday donor, checking in

[Specter]

"Lawrence is... a smart person..."

And yet not so smart that he can't understand that the cause of the problem is the concentration of power in the Federal government and not the symptom of money flowing to it.

Votes not money controls politicians ...

[perpenso]

Here's the thing though: a lot of people want a lot of changes to happen. Everyone doesn't agree on all of the changes, sure, but a lot of people want to see fundamental changes to our political system, starting with removing the corrupting influence of money. A lot of people want to support something moving in that direction, but what are our options right now?

Money is not the problem. The problem is apathetic voters who are OK with the status quo. Money does not control politicians, votes do. Money is just a tool to influence voters who don't really care one way or the other.

A member of the 1% has 1 vote, the same as a member of the 99%.

If a voter cares about an issue no amount of PAC money, no amount spent on media campaigns, is going to change their position.

Two of the most power political lobbies the US, the NRA and the AARP, have the attention of politicians **not** because of campaign contributions. The real power of these two organizations are their memberships. They have millions of members who will show up on election day and will vote according to their respective positions. These members showing up at the polls is the source of their incredible influence in Washington.

And the recent election in Virginia shows the power of motivated voters against big money. The candidate with the big money and power position in the Congress, Majority Leader Eric Cantor, lost to an university professor who spent only $100,000 on his campaign. Why, because the professor had motivated voters and Cantor only had money.

You want to do something? You want change? Then educate and motivate voters.

You want to see things stay the same? Then focus the wrong thing, money.

Re:Votes not money controls politicians ...

[AnOnyxMouseCoward]

Money is a problem, because it creates an unfair battlefield. Obviously ultimately votes matter, everything politicians do is to ensure they get and keep their votes.

In the best of worlds, people should elect candidates with the best ideas, candidates they trust and want to put in a position of power. To educate the voters so that they can vote for the best ideas, these candidates need to advertise themselves and their platforms. During a school election for example, every candidate usually gives a speech in front of their class. Votes usually go to the most popular kid regardless of platform or ideas, but everyone has mostly the same opportunity to communicate their ideas. The problem is when the "speech" is scheduled in the gym with everyone present, and you have to shout to get yourself heard. Whoever shouts loudest has a better chance of being heard, and so the person with money (ie, a loudspeaker and a stage) has a better chance than someone without money.

Now if you have the stage and the loudspeaker, but act like a jerk and give enough free publicity to your opponent (re: Cantor), obviously you can still shoot yourself in the foot...

Perfect vs the Good

[Prien715]

Until politicians stop being bought by the highest bidder, there can be no political progress in this country. While not everyone may agree with Lessig representing them, you may want to take some time to research the terrific things he's done as lawyer for the EFF.

For example, many /. may dislike the "unlimited copyright" rule where companies essentially own a copyright forever. Lessig fought the good fight in the Supreme Court.

Unless politicians represent actual people and not the Supreme Court's idea of people, corruption won't end in our political process.

Re:They're missing the root cause of the root caus

[XxtraLarGe]

Because the law of conservation of power shows that taking power away from the government won't make the power disappear, it will just end up directly in the hands of the rich.

And that's different from the way it is now? Majority In Congress Are Millionaires

Party Loyalty is Political Apathy ...

[perpenso]

Oh, and that political apathy that I mentioned. A big part of that is loyalty to your political party.

If you are loyal to your party then you are irrelevant. Your party can ignore you because they have your vote, the other party can ignore you because they can not obtain your vote.

The people who control the outcomes of elections in the US, and those to whom the politicians show some responsiveness, are those who vote for candidates and not political parties.

Belong to whatever party you want, whatever party most closely expresses your positions. But do not blindly vote for that party's candidates. Do note vote because of a party platform that a candidate is completely free to ignore. Look at the respective candidates and their track records, their voting history. Vote for whichever one you think will do the better job regardless of their party.

Voting for candidates rather than political parties is the only way for voters to regain control of politicians. Politicians must not have a political base they can count on regardless of how they vote, they must fear that every single vote they received must be earned.

Re:money != speech

[Stormy Dragon]

Suppose congress passed a law saying that, while abortions are completely legal, no one may accept payment for performing an abortion nor spend any money on supplies, personell, etc. to be able to provide one.

Would you not consider that a severe restriction on the ability to get an abortion? Would it be fair to characterize thep osition of people opposing such a law as "ha, ha, they thinks money is an abortion!"

Re:Super What?

[timrod]

PAC stands for Political Action Committee. They were created to get around certain aspects of campaign finance law, specifically regarding how much could be donated to a candidate by individuals or companies (restrictions that no longer exist due to Citizens United). The idea was that instead of donating directly to the candidate (and being restricted as to how much you could give) you could donate a much larger amount of money to a PAC, who would then do things like take out ads, pay for infrastructure (campaign headquarters for canvassers, phone banks, get out the vote programs), pay for robocalls, etc. Really, the only restriction is that the PAC has to be controlled by someone who isn't a candidate for office and the candidate can't have any direct control or say in what the PAC does.

Usually, PACs are operated by a special interest group and donate to a wide variety of candidates (ie; the NRA has one and donates to politicians opposing gun control) but they can also be dedicated to one specific candidate.

When the Citizens United decision was handed down, the rules on PACs essentially vanished. The term "SuperPAC" was coined to describe this new state for PACs, which can now take in unlimited amounts of money and have fewer regulations than ever. There is no difference between a PAC and a SuperPAC - they're one and the same thing.

Get out the base first

[Anonymous Coward]

Obama got less votes in 2012 than McCain did in 2008. Had Romney gotten all of those "for granted" votes he would have easily won. Romney won the independents by 20%. By your claim, Romney easily beat Obama by courting those in-between voters, but to your surprise Obama is still in the White House.

So, you are basically wrong, period. 2.5 Million GOP voters did not bother to come out for Romney, and had those taken granted for voters not been taken for granted it would have been different. Same thing happened to the DNC, but to a much smaller scale which is how they won.

Government money corrupts, not just PAC money

[bigpat]

The problem to me seems that regular folks don't seem to understand or care (or think they can do anything about) creating a system of government where the rule of law prevails instead of the rule of committees, boards and commissions. There is a difference between the rule of law with people executing that law and a law that simply abdicates to the discretion of men and the corrupting influence that it has.

Re:Government money corrupts, not just PAC money

[perpenso]

The problem to me seems that regular folks don't seem to understand or care (or think they can do anything about) creating a system of government where the rule of law prevails instead of the rule of committees, boards and commissions. There is a difference between the rule of law with people executing that law and a law that simply abdicates to the discretion of men and the corrupting influence that it has.

They can do something about it. They can vote out politicians who are not serving the interests of the people. The people must however be willing to vote punitively, to vote against their political party, until politicians learn that they must serve the interests of the people first. Such a darwinian process will change the behavior of politicians. Above all else, politicians want their jobs, they will do what is necessary to keep them.

Votes are the true currency of politics and a 99%'er has the same vote as a 1%'er. Money is just a tool to persuade those who don't really care one way or another. If voters care money has little power.

Partisans always exempt themselves.

[bigpat]

Oh and don't forget the political parties (limited to just the established ones) that will be exempted.

Re: Major source of corruption is Tax Code not PAC

[rickb928]

In other words, go after my IRA.

Amazing that politicians can take donations

[Beeftopia]

It is amazing to me that politicians can take money from people and businesses with the expectation of favors in return.

This is perfectly legal. It is nothing but legalized bribery.

From a recent article on a court case which further loosened campaign finance restrictions: "For the donors, they really prefer to cut the vast number of checks,” he said. “For them, it’s not about giving money, it’s about building a relationship. You’re not going to get any face time, they’re not going to hear your story.” Individual donors want to feel gratitude from the candidate — legal, “completely non-corrupting gratitude,” Backer hastened to note."

Politicians shake down big donors. Big donors try to influence politicians. It's a symbiotic relationship. What's lost are the interests of the populace. Granted, those interests can be varied, in direct conflict and not monolithic. But the politician's incentives - while always self centered of course, they're only people - should be more aligned with the public interest rather than merely with the interest of a few large donors.

Re: Major source of corruption is Tax Code not PAC

[devman]

Not an accountant, but I believe IRA earnings withdrawn are taxed as regular income today, regardless of how those gains were realized in the IRA. Getting rid of the special treatment of long term capital gains wouldn't have any impact on your IRA.

We're talking change, not winning elections ...

[perpenso]

Obama got less votes in 2012 than McCain did in 2008. Had Romney gotten all of those "for granted" votes he would have easily won. Romney won the independents by 20%. By your claim, Romney easily beat Obama by courting those in-between voters, but to your surprise Obama is still in the White House. So, you are basically wrong, period.

No, your analysis is completely flawed. The Democrats simply had better party loyalty than the Republicans that year. Party loyalty is not some fixed percentage over time nor are the number of loyal voters equal between the parties.

Your analysis is also complete off topic. You are arguing how to win elections. I am arguing how to effect change in politicians. Those are two very different things.

If anything that election proves my point. The Republican Party analyzes the results and pays attention to those who stayed at home, considers what they need to do to get these people to the polls, what they need to do to get member motivated and loyal. They paid little attention to those who showed up and voted for Romney.

Similarly the base that loyally voted for Obama was largely left of center. And what do we find them doing after elections, largely complaining of Obama's drift to the right and courting the middle. Of not fulfilling the goals of the left.

2.5 Million GOP voters did not bother to come out for Romney, and had those taken granted for voters not been taken for granted it would have been different.

You confuse party membership with party loyalty. The two are very different things. What party a person belongs to does not make any difference. What matters is that they do not automatically vote for their party's candidate.

And yes a party should be shocked and concerned over disloyalty. That is the only thing that will change a party and its politicians. A loyal base will not. A loyal base is essentially a vote for the status quo, a vote to let party leaders control things.

I don't get the name of this

[Trailer Trash]

I mean, Lessig seems like a smart guy. But "May Day" and "May One"? Yeah, I get "may day" as a distress call, but that's way different than "May One". The "May One" links this to the communist holiday (don't bother telling me about the "socialists" - it's tainted by the USSR) and makes the whole thing bizarre.

Beyond that, the idea that "campaign finance reform" is some magic bullet that will solve the problems in our country is a little clueless, too.

"Draft" people into Congress ...

[perpenso]

Better people is easy. Just do random selection. It may not result in optimal. But it would on average deliver 'better'.

It would be like the draft, you walk out to your mail box and find a letter from the government. Instead of being told to report to the Army for a year or more you are told to report to Congress for two years. :-)

Re:"Draft" people into Congress ...

[dryeo]

It would be like the draft in the sense that you lose your business or job and maybe family due to taking 2 years off. Otherwise it would be the opposite of the draft as instead of potentially going to your death, you'd be going to the land of hookers, blow and nice paid holidays in tropical resorts with a nice guaranteed well paying job that doesn't involve work after your 2 years. Just have to vote the right way and when doing blow and getting blown you will go OK.

"Civilian Public Servant"

[westlake]

Another necessary change is term limits for all of Congress so that we can replace career politicians with civilian public servants, as it was meant to be.

The "civilian public servant" of 1790 was the gentleman, the man of independent means, who was expected to take command of things out of a sense of civic duty and to give his life some greater purpose.

The problem is that not every southern planter is a Thomas Jefferson or every New York banker an Alexander Hamilton.

representatives should come out of the private sector to serve their term, and then leave and return to the private sector

In the Progressive Era of the 1880s-1890s, the Robber Baron, or his right-hand man, gravitated naturally to the US Senate. The Senator for Sugar. Cotton. Silver. Steel. Petroleum. The Railroad. Names and faces as familiar then as Henry Ford would become in the next generation. Bill Gates in our own.

The career politician probably won't have any grand design for the future of the country, But neither will he have the tunnel vision of the single-issue man.

Has Lessig gotten over the tea party?

[doom]

Last I looked, Lessig had gotten his "root strikers" off to a rocky-start by sucking-up to the Tea Party.

I liked his explanation that they aren't really racist because a poll showed they say they're not. (But you know, dude, they're birthers. Think about that for a second.)

The Lessig solution to me holding my nose and voting Democrat was that I was supposed to join-hands in coalition with the Tea Party.

And now, I guess the idea is that I'm supposed to kick in money for Lessig to influence five House races, but he won't say which ones: Lessig Starts a Super-Pac. Why would I trust his judgement, exactly?

Re:Now listen, Woz. . .

[doom]

I believe you're being unfair to our friend Lawrence Lessig.

I don't think he's anything like a "covert neo-con", I think he's a sincere idealist who veers all over the map and tends to piss off everyone eventually through his commitment to doing good in the world.

(By the way, nice handle.)

a precondition

[doom]

I have a pre-condition: if Lessig can swear that he's not going to hand this cash over to tea-party nutjobs just because they were willing to make noises (that week) about being in favor of "campaign finance reform", I might consider kicking-in.

Re: Well, this certainly should kill PAC corruptio

[LinuxLuver]

The problem is the two part system, itself a product of a non-proportional voting system. Money is just the symptom, a consequence of to few people to buy.... Offering a high yield for investment.

Re:If SuperPACs are the problem then

[Sciath]

That's exactly why politicians spend so much time raising campaign funds. If... issues were more important, money wouldn't be such a preoccupation for those in elected office. They spend a substantial amount of time at home and while in session shaking hands, patting backs, kissing babies, etc. which is all geared toward garnering favors and contributions. Money rules in America and to deny that is to ignore reality.

Re: Well, this certainly should kill PAC corruptio

[Kevoco]

If you're waiting for perfect you're gonna be waiting a while.

What's the outcome supposed to be?

[stenvar]

MayDay.US promises to "reduce the influence of money". That's a good sound bite, but the reason other people don't like your proposals is not that they like "the influence of money", but that they don't see any way of reducing that that doesn't do more harm than good. So, please be specific: what outcome do you actually envision and desire, and how are the details going to work? You propose "public funding" or "vouchers", but you are vague on who gets to make the decisions about (1) who violates your rules, (2) who the money can go to, and (3) who will still be allowed to use their own resources for political purposes.

(1) If you impose restrictions on political speech, someone needs to be in charge of determining which political speech is in violation of the restrictions you envision. For example, does generally opposing a political ideology count as political speech that I can't spend money on? Is this determined by the courts? The executive branch? Why wouldn't that power be abused by incumbents?

(2) Who can I give the vouchers that pay for political speech to? Just candidates? Not-for-profits? For-profits? Would it be a felony to sell these vouchers for money?

(3) You work for a rich and powerful organization, and many media organizations are rich and powerful too. Will universities and news corporations be subject to the same restrictions on political speech? Will you be prohibited from speaking on political issues? Will the editors of the NYT be prohibited from commenting on candidates? If not, why should they be exempted? Why should the $32+ billion company you work for have rights to engage in political speech that other companies do not?

International comparison?

[stenvar]

There are many campaign finance systems around the world, and a lot of experience with them in other countries. Can you provide clear and concrete evidence that the kind of mechanisms you envision work better in practice? What, in fact, are your quantifiable criteria for "better democracy"?

Re:They're missing the root cause of the root caus

[Duhavid]

Where does that lead?

Little to no power does not last long. Someone will grab for it.
You are seeing it now.