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"

[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"

[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]

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"

[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"

[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.

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.

[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:Funding options:

[amicusNYCL]

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

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).

Thank goodness for Citizens United

[dave3548]

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

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.'

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]

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

[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.

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.

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:Funding options:

[sexconker]

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

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:"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.