Slashdot Mirror


Interviews: Ask Lawrence Lessig About His Mayday PAC

samzenpus (5) writes "Lawrence Lessig's list of achievements and areas of influence is not small. He's co-founder of the Creative Commons, but it is his Mayday PAC however that has garnered the most attention recently. The crowdfunded "Super PAC to end all Super PACs" was launched in May with the goal of raising money to elect candidates who would pass campaign finance reform. It raised over $1 million in the first 13 days and has the support of some influential people. With the help of matching contributions, Mayday hopes to raise $12 million by the end of June. Lessig has agreed to answer any questions about the PAC that you might have. As usual, ask as many as you'd like, but please, one question per post."

12 of 308 comments (clear)

  1. Other similar Efforts by Great+Big+Bird · · Score: 5, Interesting

    There are other similar efforts, specifically WolfPAC, which aims to reform using a constitutional amendment. Do you feel that these other efforts are complimentary or just duplication of effort?

  2. Reverting to business-as-usual by guruevi · · Score: 4, Interesting

    So best case scenario is that you lobby away PAC money in the next election cycle. Once you have reached your goal, what do you think is going to prevent lawmakers from finding other loopholes in the laws to do something similar-but-not-equal the cycle after that? As we've seen with FISA/DMCA/... - if they can't do it this year, they'll try and try again until they can get their ways.

    In other words, do you think getting rid of PAC's is going to solve anything about corporate money flowing into government. And once you have outlawed the only avenue currently available (a PAC that is run by the people) that can somewhat level the playing field for citizens, what other avenues will there be to fight this corruption?

    --
    Custom electronics and digital signage for your business: www.evcircuits.com
  3. clarify FAQ on statutory vs. constitutional path by fche · · Score: 4, Interesting

    Why do you believe statutory reform is necessary, or sufficient to accomplish anything serious? Why do you believe it is a precondition of a constitutional-amendment path?

  4. timing and resource allocation by globaljustin · · Score: 5, Interesting

    Mr. Lessig, thanks for taking the time.

    My question is about timing and resource allocation: With all the problems in America right now, why did you feel that campaign finance reform was the one issue of many (civil rights, immigration, American poverty, health care, etc.) that deserves this huge P.R. and money push now?

    --
    Thank you Dave Raggett
  5. Unions. by harrkev · · Score: 5, Insightful

    I was just wondering if you were also concerned about money from unions? To me, a millionaire donating is own money is somehow less problematic than unions taking money from their members to donate. Keep in mind that in many states, union membership is required in order to get the job. Therefore, many union members may find their money being used to support candidates that they do not support.

    --
    "-1 Troll" is the apparently the same as "-1 I disagree with you."
    1. Re:Unions. by TheRaven64 · · Score: 4, Interesting

      Keep in mind that in many states, union membership is required in order to get the job.

      I've never understood this about the USA, it seems to completely miss the point of unions. Here, there are often two or three unions that are competing for members, so you get the benefits of collective bargaining and the benefits of competition. Collective bargaining via a monopoly that has no incentive to represent your interests is much the same position you're in with no union at all...

      --
      I am TheRaven on Soylent News
  6. Mayday PAC by werepants · · Score: 4, Interesting

    What kind of accountability exists with the Mayday PAC to ensure that representatives elected due to this funding actually follow through on promises of campaign finance reform?

  7. Why not Wolf PAC? by werepants · · Score: 4, Interesting

    Why do you believe that forming a PAC to elect reform-minded candidates is more promising than Wolf PAC's method, of bypassing the typical political process and trying to call an Article V Convention for the purpose of limiting the influence that money has over our political process?

  8. Government regulation of political speech by Jay+Maynard · · Score: 4, Insightful

    Why does the prospect of government regulation of political speech not terrify you to your core? Any "campaign reform" proposal must necessarily result in government deciding which speech is political and which is not, which is permissible and which is not. How do you prevent government from suppressing only political speech that it disapproves of?

    --
    Disinfect the GNU General Public Virus!
  9. Makes News Media Even More Powerful by cmarkn · · Score: 4, Interesting

    The two major parties have done everything in their power to make sure that minority candidates have virtually insurmountable obstacles to their getting onto a ballot in the first place, and even then these candidates are rarely given serious coverage by the media. If you were to actually succeed in taking the money out of political campaigning, then how do you keep the news media from completely controlling who gets elected by their control of who is able to get their message out?

    Don't suggest that a "Fairness Doctrine" will provide equal coverage to all candidates, because there would certainly be a test for "viability" of candidates before they get any taxpayer-provided funding, and only major-party candidates would ever pass that test.

    --
    People should not fear their government. Governments should fear their people.
  10. Term Limits by JWW · · Score: 4, Interesting

    Mr. Lessig,

    Have you considered the potential side effect that if you are successful in removing "money from politics"? You will likely end up enormously empowering the position of incumbency, establishing a ruling class that once elected, no one will have the capabilities to truly mount a successful campaign against.

    Incumbents have huge benefits and a large number of tools to communicate to the voters (who are of course their constituents, so they can even justify it).

    My great fear is that campaign finance reform will do nothing to stem the tide of permanent, lifetime, politicians dominating our system. Even in the worst election for incumbents in a half century (2010) over 80% of incumbents won.

    Will you support and make your backed candidates support a constitutional amendment to create and enforce term limits on members of Congress?

    If Mayday can't support term limits, then I can't support it. In fact I may feel compelled to fight against it. I don't even really want money out of politics if it leads to lifetime memberships in Congress for the lucky ones that achieve office once, and then never lose again until they die.

  11. Re:Irony by rudy_wayne · · Score: 5, Insightful

    This would be taken seriously if Cantor hadn't just lost after outspending the other guy 5,000,000 to 200,000.

    . The Eric Cantor case was an exception, not the rule. In most cases, the politician who greatly outspends his opponent usually wins

    But the bigger issue that Lessig doesn't seem to understand is that he's not the only person trying to buy politicians. No matter how much money he raises, there are people out there spending a whole lot more money, a LOT more money, to buy politicians who oppose the political agenda supported by Lessig, the EFF and others.