Slashdot Mirror
Lawrence Lessig Answers Your Questions About His Mayday PAC (Video)
We've mentioned this interesting PAC more than once, including when Steve Wozniak endorsed it. The original Mayday PAC goal was to raise $1 million. Now Larry is working on a second -- and more ambitious -- goal: To raise $5 million by July 4. We called for your questions on June 23, and got a bunch of them. This time, instead of asking via email, we used Google Hangout to ask via video.
Here's a quote from the Mayday website:'We are a crowdfunded Super PAC to end all Super PACs. Ironic? Yes. Embrace the irony. We’re kickstarting a Super PAC big enough to make it possible to win a Congress committed to fundamental reform by 2016. We set fundraising goals and then crowdfund those goals." Check the Mayday About page and you'll see that a whole bunch of Internet and coding luminaries are on board. You may also notice that they span the political spectrum; this is totally not a partisan effort. | Another quote from the website: "Wealthy funders are holding our democracy hostage. We want to pay the ransom and get it back." Is this an achievable goal? We'll never know if we don't try. | This is Part 1 of a 2-part video. (Alternate Video Link) Update: 07/02 23:42 GMT by T : Here's a link to part 2 of the video, too.
What difference does any of these efforts make if the 9-robe court thinks corporate donations and an individual's right to free speech are essentially exactly the same?
What process defeats an over-arching fail condition like that?
Would be to put it all in youtube videos, right?
WRONG.
Sure, videos have their purpose but just give me a damned transcript. I can read a transcript in much less time than it takes to watch some old guy babble, and I can search the text of it as well.
Damn_registrars has no butt-hole. Damn_registrars has no use for a butt-hole.
Written answers are higher quality than spoken. I'm not interested in watching a video. (I thought we'd already covered this? Does anyone really like videos on /. ?)
the mega-corporations (banking cartel, big oil, defense, etc.) that have our government in their pockets won't be stopped or hindered by this well-intentioned idea. something more drastic would be needed, constitutional amendment using path of national convention and ratifying states
Come on, guys. Post the damn transcript instead of a stupid video.
The best thing about UDP jokes is I don't care if you get them or not
I second that motion!
So we're going to win against the mega-corporations by outspending them? The top five companies in the US alone bring in 1.4 trillion USD/year in revenue. It would take them less than two minutes to match this new, larger goal.
Just because I can hook a shark from a boat, I do no offer to wrestle it in the water.
It would be nice if "fundamental reform" was defined, wouldn't it? I basically do not trust vague platitudes such as "fundamental reform". They must tell me specifically what they plan. Is it more government to "protect me" or is it "get the friggin' government out of my face?"
I've rather had it up to here with oppressively huge government. Let's try small government for a change. It worked when we did it that way. It's better than "more of the same old same old" we've been doing of late, R and D both.
Fool me once, shame on you. Fool me twice, shame on me.
{^_^}
The transcript for this video was a little late, but it's up now.
I would call the attempt at stripping the rights of people to that freedom of association and speech using such a group to be hypocritical, not ironic. And I say the same thing about Move To Amend, where the specific goal is to remove the right to free speech from people they disagree with using the same tactics they allegedly disagree with.
There's a Hide/Show transcript button just below the video.
Why is it ironic? The whole point here is that money has undue influence in politics, so in order to effect political change (including the reduction of that influence!) you need money. It's trying to beat the system with the tools that are empowered by that system.
http://www.politifact.com/trut...
"I say we take off, nuke the site from orbit. It's the only way to be sure."
this issue has nothing to do with who is president, nor can any president solve the problem. remember Douglas Adam's words, the purpose of a president is not to wield power but merely to distract attention from those who do.
So, not only did he dodge the hard questions (about the difficulty of getting money out of politics without silencing people who want to spread a message), he did it in the least accessible way!
Transcript?
Information theory is life. The rest is just the KL divergence.
Absolute nonsense! The voters voluntarily hand it to them on a silver platter. The power to render the money useless lies in your votes, not in legislation that will inevitably be corrupted by the same politicians that are owned. From their point of view, there is no reason to change anything. The present system has its rewards, and the voters are the only ones that can change that, but only if they desire it. Legislation is not a slippery slope, it's a cliff, and the lemmings are heading right for it.
“He’s not deformed, he’s just drunk!”
That is not particularly useful, though. The Hide/Show transcript button displays the transcript in real-time, with the video
No it doesn't. It displays this:
Tim: Larry, one of our readers has asked: What do you think if you reach all the goals that you have right now for the Mayday PAC, what will prevent lawmakers from finding other loopholes in laws that do something that’s similar but not quite the same as campaign contributions. We’ve seen it with FISA and DMCA that people can’t necessarily get some sort of legislative advantage—they’ll try it again and try it again the next year. So if you get rid of all corporate money in government, do you think that’s the only avenue for undue influence? What is the answer to someone who says that this isn’t enough to really remove that sort of influence in government?
Larry: So there is an idea good enough for government work that I think we need to embrace and understand. It is a standard way below the standard of typical technologists. It is a standard that’s hard for, I think, technologists to accept—but here’s the idea: If we change the way elections are funded, we will give Congress a chance to actually think of something other than what the big funders care about, when they make a decision. Now they could still make the wrong decision—they could still make a stupid decision. They can still make a completely biased or ill-informed decision. There is no guarantee that this creates good government. But what it does do is give them the freedom, ‘the freedom to lead’, as Buddy Roemer used to say. Because they are no longer focused on what this tiny tiny fraction of the 1% care about. So nothing we are offering is about perfection. We are offering the first necessary step. To get us out of the pathology that we are in right now.
Tim: Okay. So another critical and this one is a slightly different type of critical questions that a lot of our readers have, and I think this is also widespread, is they object to the idea of regulating the money that can be given to a political campaign, and they say that that is equivalent to speech; one reader asks, and I am going to say that this is somewhat facetiously, that aren’t you in that way, also calling for a prohibition of documentaries of the political bench, or books written by politicians who are in favor of a particular candidate? Distinguish the way money per se as a campaign contribution in that form is different from other forms of material support, and why it is that it is okay to limit contributions to a certain dollar amount for a person or group as opposed to other ways that people influence political campaigns themselves.
Larry: Great question. So the Mayday PAC is aiming at changing the way elections are funded. And the proposals that we pointed to don’t necessarily do anything directly about limiting people’s capacity to spend their money to speak.
Tim: But then we already have such restrictions anyhow with campaign contribution limits.
Larry: Right. But we are not focused on restrictions—we are focused on increasing the range of people who participate in the funding of elections. So there are two basic models that we’ve got: One is the voucher program—you can see it at reform.to—a voucher proposal, where every voter is given a voucher that they use to fund small dollar elections. The other is matching grant where you give a small contribution—it’s matched up to 9:1—that’s John Sarbanes’ proposal. Those two proposals don’t restrict anybody’s ability to contribute anything. Or don’t restrict people’s ability to spend their money speaking at all. All this is doing is making it, so candidates don’t spend all of their time literally 30% to 70% of their time, focused on the tiniest fraction of the 1%. So there are lots of people out there who are talking about much more r
I don't see how their $5 million is even a drop in the bucket compared to the couple billion the big money donors will bring to field in the election. We can't fight them with money.
People make me pro-nuclear.
It would be like turkeys voting for Thanksgiving.
Donte Alistair Anderson Roberts - hi son!
Karma: Chameleon
The only way to stop Koch brothers and various BribeLaunderingPacs from throwng hundreds of millions of dollars at elections is for it to cease to be cost-effective to do so. The first time money doesn't make a difference, it will no longer be an issue. Free flow of information is a significant step.
300 million "average" people each donating as much as they possibly can afford, cannot even hope to match the BribePac power of a single Walton or Koch.
It is 100% fruitless to attempt to fight them on this arena, the only thing we can hope to do is defeat them with unlimited free press (via the internet)... which is a huge longshot, but at least it isn't mathematically impossible,
Let's try small government for a change. It worked when we did it that way.
“He’s not deformed, he’s just drunk!”
the First Amendment?
"This freedom is widely acknowledged—except by the case’s critics—to be at the very core of the First Amendment. If the First Amendment protects anything, it protects freedom to engage in political speech. And when speech is protected by the First Amendment, so is spending money to speak."
While I believe the first two sentences of this argument are be true, I see no logical reason to infer the final sentence, which I think is false. This being the case, I find entire line of reasoning invalid.
Ideology: A tool used primarily to avoid the bother of thinking.
Thank you! I must have hit the wrong button, or perhaps it doesn't work correctly on my browser.
Damn_registrars has no butt-hole. Damn_registrars has no use for a butt-hole.
If these celebrities and other chuckleheads really want to fix the government, they should probably start by retaking freshman Civics and learning what sort of government the Constitution sets forth.
To wit - the word "democracy" appears at least 4 times on the main page, but the word "republic" doesn't even appear once.
An enigma, wrapped in a riddle, shrouded in bacon and cheese
Not really. If you want to force someone to lay down their weapon, you'll have to use weapon yourself. If the one that they use happens to be the most efficient in the circumstances, then you'd do well to pick the same. It's not really ironic, it's just the way the world works.
I too found the page to be rather hard to process. The reason I linked to it was to illustrate, that the issue discussed is, indeed, directly connected to the First Amendment and that those unhappy with it would have to modify the Amendment itself.
In Soviet Washington the swamp drains you.
You are welcome. Are you using Slashdot Beta? I am on the old one. I tried it in IN, FF, and Chrome and it did the same thing. But somehow it always serves me the old-skool design even though I am not logged-in on 2 of those 3 browsers.
Yes, it is ironic.
Go to Google and search for "Define ironic"
Then read the, I think it was the second, definition.
It's almost verbatim the rationale I posted (better be, I C&P'd most of it).
You're entitled to your own opinion, but not your own facts. Now please stop arguing about it, as you've succeeded in ruining the humor.
An enigma, wrapped in a riddle, shrouded in bacon and cheese
Actually, you need 2/3 of both the House and the Senate, plus 3/4 of the state legislatures. Amending the Constitution ain't easy (intentionally so).
Freedom of assembly. Freedom of speech.
How do you tell a small businessman that others can organize and raise funds to win an election and he can't? How do you make that argument to the NRA or the NAACP? The teacher's union or the EFF?
If a congress can be bribed to make an amendment to the constitution that specifies that money, resources, or commodities cannot be equated to speech, then the verdict of the Supreme Court is nullified by the voices that represent the will of the people.
This is as blatantly corrupt a political argument as I have ever heard expressed.
I don't care whether the voice comes from the right or the left.
I do care when the reformer starts to think that because he has the money and the power, he alone has heard the voice of God --- and that anything he does is perfectly all right.
For those who don't know: At the bottom of every page there's a link from "Beta" to the real Slashdot site.
The title of this post was, "Lawrence Lessig Answers Your Questions...", but what we got in response was a trendy video interview with generalized responses, not the promised (or at least implied by past history) direct responses.
Is this all we can expect from this sort of post in the future? One more nail in Slashdot's coffin.
It was during the Articles of Confederation period (1781-1789), except it didn't really work out. Instead, the government had to put down a rebellion that very likely influenced our decision as a nation to have a strong central government.
yes, talking about same guy. he can start enforcing existing law in all kinds of ways if he really wanted to do something, but Obama is all talk
So, you believe that the First Amendment is limited to speech with no artificial aids, eh?
Note that that would allow newspapers and news broadcasts to control information flow during a political campaign. Unless you intend to restrict Freedom of the Press as well.
Note that neither newscasters nor newspapermen are unbiased, and allowing them to decide what you are allowed to know about a particular candidate is at least as bad as the current situation.
Note also that the incumbent has an enormous advantage even if the news people are paragons of virtue to the last man - all an incumbent has to do to get press attention is propose a law. His challenger(s) get no such instant attention.
So, your ideal solution guts the Freedom of Speech, the Freedom of the Press, OR it gives incumbents an enormously LARGER advantage....
"I do not agree with what you say, but I will defend to the death your right to say it"
Why is it ironic? The whole point here is that money has undue influence in politics, so in order to effect political change (including the reduction of that influence!) you need money. It's trying to beat the system with the tools that are empowered by that system.
This reminds me of Richard Stallman leveraging copyright law to essentially enforce restrictions on liberties traditionally associated with it (Copyleft).
It's the strength of a vested established system that is also its weakness: it's so strong that only thing that can defeat it is itself.
"And when speech is protected by the First Amendment, so is spending money to speak." Maybe because the 1st Amendment guarantees far more than the right to chat with your neighbor over the fence and utilize modern equivalents to printing and passing pamphlets like was done in the run up to the American Revolution and the disseminating of the Federalist Papers in the push to have the constitution ratified? Hell, even doing the same thing as was done back then costs money.
"newspapers and news broadcasts... newspapermen..." Now don't go getting all rational and bringing up the good parts of Citizens United, you might confuse the feeble minded.
The Whiskey Rebellion in 1791 came after the new Constitution. Apparently bigger government wasn't the solution.
It occurs to me that having a government murderous enough to quash all rebellions is worse than having rebellions.
Contribute to civilization: ari.aynrand.org/donate
Sorry, you're off by 15 years. Harding and Coolidge reduced the power of the government; not until Hoover in 1929 did the relentless trend to tyranny begin.
Contribute to civilization: ari.aynrand.org/donate
Douglas Adams was an absurdist more interested in jokes than political reality; relying on him for accurate observations is an error.
The president is powerful enough to roll over the opposition of any single person. Wise enough, not necessarily, but surely powerful enough.
Contribute to civilization: ari.aynrand.org/donate
In the 1970s there were a bunch of laws passed that supposedly were going to greatly limit the influence of big money in elections. They all totally failed. So now you are going to try it again. "This time it's different."
It's not true that "big money is stealing our democracy." We never had democracy. If we did there wouldn't be any big money. Also--if the problem is big money, then countries where elections are publicly financed should have "better" governments. Name one.
Consider freedom of the press, since it is more obvious and physical that freedom of speech. Freedom of the press means that the government may not interfere with printing and distributing books, pamphlets, posters, newspapers, bumper stickers, etc.. Government must not destroy printing presses, prevent printed material from being transported, regulate presses or printing businesses in a manner different from other businesses, threaten the owner of the press or his employees, or prevent him from receiving or spending money for the production of printed material, or regulate such monetary movement. Printing is not free, and the dissemination of ideas in print cannot be separated from the money needed to print.
Contribute to civilization: ari.aynrand.org/donate
Why do people use a video these days rather than just typing answers? Moving pictures of Larry's face jabbering don't add much to the proceedings and frankly, I can read answers a lot more quickly than it takes to listen to a video. And, if I happen to be in my office, I can read a transcript without disturbing others.
Sorry, but this is really a pet peeve. If you don't have a visually dynamic presentation of information that can't be conveyed any other way, video takes more bandwidth and adds little. So why do you do it? To look hip? It doesn't work.
That is all.
It was during the Articles of Confederation period...
Really? You mean there were no slaves and women could vote?
From what I've heard, the best times were during the revolutionary war, when the races were freely intersexing and the saloons, I mean pubs, served anyone with the cash any day, any hour, and working hours were rather... relaxed.
“He’s not deformed, he’s just drunk!”
I just looked at it again and realized that I missed that button (a text link in my version of FF) entirely. When you mentioned it as a button I was thinking of the youtube button of the same function (which is often something of a random gibberish generator).
Thank you
Damn_registrars has no butt-hole. Damn_registrars has no use for a butt-hole.
I stand corrected. You're right of course, 3/4 are still required to actually pass the amendment.
"Malo periculosam, libertatem quam quietam servitutem." -- Jefferson
This is a red herring. Whoever can vote, whether or not slavery is legal, is irrelevant. By 1913, for example, slavery has been (highly) illegal for decades — but there was no Federal Income Tax (the major step towards today's slavery).
By 1920 women got their right to vote (19th Amendment), but Roosevelt's confiscation of gold — to finance his government-expansion — remained years away.
Bit by bit the people in government — sincerely convinced, they can do better for us, than we can ourselves — insist on "taking care" of us. And life changes for the worse every time the ratchet turns towards greater governmental control over the subjects. Undoing it even a little bit would be a great relief.
In Soviet Washington the swamp drains you.
This party has for OVER TEN YEARS committed to NOT TAKING CORPORATE MONEY! And this PAC is just another group claiming to be neutral but ultimately will sort through Democrats for the elections. Credo, MOVEon, Emily's List, all claim to look for progressive candidates. The GREEN Party is FULL of PROGRESSIVE candidates. We shall see if any of your 5 choices are from the Green party.
Whereas we the people are created equal, and whereas we the people are endowed with certain inalienable rights, and whereas we the people instituted a government to secure these rights, and whereas we the people lay the foundation on such principles, and organize its power in such form, as to us shall seem most likely to effect the above objective, do require the following Bill of Rights for Voting Equality. 1. Each citizen of the United States at or exceeding the age of majority has the right to vote in any public election in the jurisdiction where he or she resides. That right shall not be denied or abridged by the United States, any State, agreement, person, or entity. After incarceration all rights shall resume. 2. a) All citizens of the United States, residing in all states, shall have equal access, (the same requirements), to creating a political party and achieving a ballot line. b) All candidates and parties shall have equal time constraints to qualify for ballot access. c) All proofs will be received by a multi-partisan regulatory board, such as the Board of Elections. d) All citizens that desire to be candidates, shall register at their local Board of Elections. e) The Board of Elections shall divide equally, the campaign tools for election purposes. All tools must be properly labeled as citizen provided. f) Elections shall be publicly funded. No private money may be used for a public office, or seat in the government. The citizen must have full confidence that no bribery or appearance of bribery is taking place. 3. The District constituting the seat of Government of the United States shall elect Senators and Representatives in the Congress in such number and such manner as it would be entitled if it were a State. 4. All citizens must be able to verify that the vote has been counted accurately. All ballots must be counted by hand. All counting must be supervised by multi-partisan personnel and recorded. 5. a) There shall be at least one Representative to each Thirty Thousand citizens, per state. b) Each state shall divide its population by 30,000 to determine its number of representatives. c) Each Representative shall have the voting power equal to the number of citizens that voted for them. d) Congress shall be unicameral, and the Senate shall be dissolved. 6. All citizens shall have equal early voting hours in which to cast their vote. sufficient voting places, materials, and personnel shall be provided to reduce the voting time to within an hour. 7. The Presidential/Vice-Presidential election shall be counted by (score or approval) counting. If you would like to read the reasons behind each rule go here instead. https://www.facebook.com/group...
Are the Soros, Buffets, and Gates a part of the American Legislative Exchange Council? because I think that group is unconstitutional,and any legislators that get their bills from them should lose their office. Left or Right.
Don't the oil spills all over the country bother you? Or the swindling that the banks have done to consumers and investors? The lack of government oversight is allowing businesses to kill us and look the other way. Take GM for one. Pharmaceutical companies pushing through things that are easily checkable. And tort reform the big lie that causes us to lower the only weapon left. No I need government to protect me since I am not an expert on all of these different businesses.
Whereas we the people are created equal, and whereas we the people are endowed with certain inalienable rights, and whereas we the people instituted a government to secure these rights, and whereas we the people lay the foundation on such principles, and organize its power in such form, as to us shall seem most likely to effect the above objective, do require the following Bill of Rights for Voting Equality.
1. Each citizen of the United States at or exceeding the age of majority has the right to vote in any public election in the jurisdiction where he or she resides. That right shall not be denied or abridged by the United States, any State, agreement, person, or entity. After incarceration all rights shall resume.
2. a) All citizens of the United States, residing in all states, shall have equal access, (the same requirements), to creating a political party and achieving a ballot line. b) All candidates and parties shall have equal time constraints to qualify for ballot access. c) All proofs will be received by a multi-partisan regulatory board, such as the Board of Elections. d) All citizens that desire to be candidates, shall register at their local Board of Elections. e) The Board of Elections shall divide equally, the campaign tools for election purposes. All tools must be properly labeled as citizen provided. f) Elections shall be publicly funded. No private money may be used for a public office, or seat in the government. The citizen must have full confidence that no bribery or appearance of bribery is taking place.
3. The District constituting the seat of Government of the United States shall elect Senators and Representatives in the Congress in such number and such manner as it would be entitled if it were a State.
4. All citizens must be able to verify that the vote has been counted accurately. All ballots must be counted by hand. All counting must be supervised by multi-partisan personnel and recorded.
5. a) There shall be at least one Representative to each Thirty Thousand citizens, per state. b) Each state shall divide its population by 30,000 to determine its number of representatives. c) Each Representative shall have the voting power equal to the number of citizens that voted for them. d) Congress shall be unicameral, and the Senate shall be dissolved.
6. All citizens shall have equal early voting hours in which to cast their vote. sufficient voting places, materials, and personnel shall be provided to reduce the voting time to within an hour.
7. The Presidential/Vice-Presidential election shall be counted by (score or approval) counting.
If you would like to read the reasons behind each rule go here instead. https://www.facebook.com/group...