Slashdot Mirror

← Back to Stories (view on slashdot.org)

Lessig's Mayday PAC Scrambling To Cross Crowd Funding Finish Line

Posted by timothy on from the latest-midnight-they-could-find dept.

First time accepted submitter SingleEntendre (1273012) writes "Time is running out for the Mayday PAC to reach its latest crowd funding goal of $5M. The total currently stands at $4.5M. Led by Harvard Law Professor Lawrence Lessig, the Mayday PAC seeks to reduce the influence of money in US politics by 2016, primarily by identifying and supporting congressional candidates who share this vision. If phase 2 is successful, with matching funds the total raised will be $12M. A self-imposed deadline arrives at of midnight tonight, July 4th, Hawaii-Aleutian Standard Time (HAST)." (And now the total's at $4,700,066.)

117 comments

  1. Not a dime from me by Anonymous Coward · · Score: -1, Troll

    I just can't support someone whose idea of freedom is allegedly protecting the rights of one group by oppressing another group.

    1. Re:Not a dime from me by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 4, Funny

      Is the other group that they're oppressing money?

    2. Re:Not a dime from me by Em+Adespoton · · Score: 3, Insightful

      I just can't support someone whose idea of freedom is allegedly protecting the rights of one group by oppressing another group.

      Are you a US citizen? If so, you're likely supporting the current government structure by paying taxes. Just saying.

      If you can get similar momentum behind some solution that has a chance of making any difference, and doesn't oppress anyone, go for it.

    3. Re: Not a dime from me by duwainpowell · · Score: 2

      Nirvana fallacy - Le mieux est l'ennemi du bien (The perfect is the enemy of the good) - Voltaire

    4. Re:Not a dime from me by guises · · Score: 1

      "Allegedly" is right. The level of rhetoric here is nuts: Mayday's stated goal is to change the way that campaigns are funded such that each person (voter) can contribute equally to the campaigns of their choice. This is in opposition to the current method, where each person can contribute an amount limited only be their means, giving drastically more influence (or speech, as the supreme court sees it) to those of significant means.

      There is no group being oppressed here, though I'm starting to think that these common sense campaigns could do better by taking some sort of crazy position like that. It's all that people hear nowadays.

    5. Re: Not a dime from me by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Yup. Its good to allow Chinese gov to control our politician. I know that Coffman is on the take from Chinese business wholly owned by Chinese gov.

    6. Re:Not a dime from me by geezer+nerd · · Score: 1

      Where in this is someone oppressing anyone else? I don't see it.

    7. Re: Not a dime from me by bill_mcgonigle · · Score: 1

      yeah, Lessig always correctly identifies the corruption thst results ftom power being for sale, and then he proposes creating more power to solve it, 'cause, honest, it'll be different this time. He and his well-meaning friends will make sure of that.

      --
      My God, it's Full of Source!
      OUTSIDE_IP=$(dig +short my.ip @outsideip.net)
    8. Re:Not a dime from me by davester666 · · Score: 2

      Yes, we mustn't suppress Hitler. We have to somehow raise everybody else up.

      --
      Sleep your way to a whiter smile...date a dentist!
    9. Re:Not a dime from me by Blakey+Rat · · Score: 2

      "Allegedly" is right. The level of rhetoric here is nuts: Mayday's stated goal is to change the way that campaigns are funded such that each person (voter) can contribute equally to the campaigns of their choice.

      That's the exact problem I have with it. It's an effective tax raise, and what happens to the money raised? It goes to support candidates I might vehemently disagree with. To buy them TV commercials. I find that pretty objectionable.

      I have no issue with Lessig's end-goal here, I think it's noble and needed. But the way he's going about it is awful, and I won't be contributing money to it.

      --
      Comment of the year
    10. Re:Not a dime from me by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      > It goes to support candidates I might vehemently disagree with.

      Only in the same way your tax dollars pays for lawyers to work as public defenders of heinous criminals.

      In other words the fact that money goes to people you disagree with is part of the price of a fair system. You want a fair system? You have to pay for it one way or the other. You can't have your cake and eat it too.

    11. Re:Not a dime from me by guises · · Score: 1

      Try looking at it this way: the 2012 election cost our economy just shy of $2 billion. If we do it through the voucher system, one of Mayday's proposed solutions, we can set that amount to whatever we like. Say $200 million, roughly the same as funded through FECA. That's a dramatic improvement in efficiency.

      Now how you see that depends on your attitude towards money: the efficient method comes out of taxes (partially paid for by you), while the inefficient method is paid by third parties. In other words, the cost of the election in the inefficient case effects you indirectly rather than directly. As long as you are in any way connected to this economy though, you would feel it.

    12. Re:Not a dime from me by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 1

      I'd rather have $50 of my tax money go towards solving corruption and reducing the influence of special interests than whatever wasteful spending is going on now.

    13. Re:Not a dime from me by CrimsonAvenger · · Score: 1

      Does any mention of a candidate in the news come out of the hypothetical $200M?

      If not, then the incumbent has an enormous advantage in that he/she can get into the news just by proposing a piece of legislation.

      If so, then a news entity can burn through a disliked candidate's share of the $200M by doing a bunch of stories maligning the candidate, leaving no money for positive PR.

      Or were you planning on suspending Freedom of the Press for campaigns?

      Or did Lessig just forget that news people have political beliefs too, and are willing to act on them?

      --

      "I do not agree with what you say, but I will defend to the death your right to say it"
    14. Re:Not a dime from me by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      > Is the other group that they're oppressing money?

      Please! You're talking about that guy's religion!

      Corporations:people
      Money:speech
      Bribery:conversation

    15. Re:Not a dime from me by Rob+Y. · · Score: 1

      Incumbents will always have the publicity advantage - though that also applies to bad publicity. If you think that carpet bombing the public with corporate-funded messages is an appropriate way to counter that, then where's the room for non-corporate messages. Somebody's still got an unfair advantage. Candidates of all stripes are well enough versed in media manipulation to largely counter the encumbent's 'newsworthiness' advantage - though I guess the media (and the public) are slow to pay attention until a candidate manages to get nominated into a high-stakes race. Still, the problems of a corrupt and lazy media and a lazy electorate are nothing compared to the wholesale undermining of the principle of one person one vote democracy that we have now.

      --
      Posted from my Android phone. Oh, I can change this? There, that's better...
    16. Re:Not a dime from me by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      This PAC purposes to spend $ in the political process, thereby furthering the institutions that depend on that flow of cash, in order to oppose spending $ in the political process.

      It is not a system view of things. It is a lot like killing for peace, buying slaves to oppose slavery, increasing subsidies to support the economy, ...

  2. Embrace the irony? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: -1

    "We need a team of legislators in Congress who will champion the public policies necessary to fix our broken government"

    That is exactly what we have in the Libertarian party (and no, I don't mean the dope-smoking anarchist idiots, I mean the Tea Party), yet this asshat continuously cuts them down as if they're the end of the fucking world.

    1. Re:Embrace the irony? by dosius · · Score: 0, Redundant

      The Tea Party? You mean the religiots bent on turning our country into Saudi Arabia with crosses? No thank you.

      --
      What you hear in the ear, preach from the rooftop Matthew 10.27b
    2. Re: Embrace the irony? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0, Insightful

      You have absolutely no idea what the Tea Party movement represents.

    3. Re: Embrace the irony? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: -1

      Herp derp. You people are so fucking retarded it's painful to read your drivel.

    4. Re: Embrace the irony? by dosius · · Score: 2, Interesting

      I know what they CLAIM to represent, and I know what they represent in their words and deeds.

      Most of the ones who I've heard open their mouths are blatant christofascists, historical revisionists, racists, sexists, etc. My assessment that they want to turn us into a "Christian Saudi Arabia" is based on their words and deeds (listen to their talking points, there's a lot of Christian nation, Seven Mountains Mandate and the like talk).

      --
      What you hear in the ear, preach from the rooftop Matthew 10.27b
    5. Re:Embrace the irony? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      You should donate, since you obviously hate grass roots campaigns to reduce the size of the government. You obviously are either benefiting from government corruption or are a retard. This PAC ensures that small grass roots groups are illegal and only the current corrupt organizations are allowed.

    6. Re:Embrace the irony? by dosius · · Score: 1

      Grassroots campaigns? You mean Koch Industries-driven corporate astroturf?

      By the way, I receive SSI disability (because as a result of diagnosed mental issues I am unemployable, and I have effectively no family); furthermore I am under the LGBT umbrella - the Tea Party types have been very vocal in saying that they consider my type to be a waste of oxygen, and wouldn't want my support even if I were willing to give it to them.

      --
      What you hear in the ear, preach from the rooftop Matthew 10.27b
    7. Re:Embrace the irony? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: -1

      You forgot to mention you were black and that I'm a racisit as you were making up viewpoints for me amongst your other lies. Jackass liberal that thinks oppressing people is ok is all you are.

    8. Re:Embrace the irony? by dosius · · Score: 1

      Sorry, I'm Caucasian. :P

      --
      What you hear in the ear, preach from the rooftop Matthew 10.27b
    9. Re: Embrace the irony? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 1

      Most of the ones who I've heard open their mouths are blatant christofascists, historical revisionists, racists, sexists, etc.

      This.

      I keep hearing the "But, but, that's not really the Tea Party!" nonsense. I tell them the same thing every other group gets told:

      These people are operating under your colors. They represent you, whether you like it or not. Don't like it? Do something about it. Or you can play at being the Catholic church, sweep it under the rug, say, "But, but, it's only a comparatively few..." and have everyone make altar boy jokes about you, forever.

      Kick the Koch-suckers out of the Tea Party. Or deal with the fact that your Party is reprehensible.

    10. Re:Embrace the irony? by geezer+nerd · · Score: 2

      If you are going to get this into name-calling and shouting of drivel, at least come out from behind the AC mask. The only folks I can see that are preaching oppression of others are the TeaPubs. Please, save me from them.

    11. Re:Embrace the irony? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      No, you made a grammar mistake there. It's not that we don't want your support, it's that we don't want to support you. Forever.

    12. Re:Embrace the irony? by mrbax · · Score: 1

      Citation needed.

  3. Screw you, Lawrence by Anonymous Coward · · Score: -1, Flamebait

    You are no better than those you're railing against. It's not ironic that your idea of protecting free speech and "fixing" government is to use that government to oppress the free speech rights of millions of people. No, that's not irony, that is nothing other than bald faced, power-grabbing lust for control.

    You are no different than the Democrats and Republicans who want to grab a bunch of oppressive powers and use them to control people to your own ends.

    1. Re:Screw you, Lawrence by Em+Adespoton · · Score: 4, Informative

      No matter what you think of Lessig, I think that the experiment in and of itself is interesting.

      It's something that hasn't been tried before. If it doesn't work, a bunch of people are out parts of $5mil. If by some miracle it DOES work... well, then what's the use of decrying it?

      The only real downside I can see to this PAC is that people who might have put their time/money into some competing and more effective project put it into this one, pinning more hope on the strategy than maybe they should have.

      But unless we see it attempted at least once, we won't really know what effect it will have on the political climate.

      So go for it, Larry & Gang! I hope it works.

    2. Re:Screw you, Lawrence by Em+Adespoton · · Score: 1

      Oh, and:

      $4,738,863
              pledged of $5,000,000 goal

      11 hours left
              time remaining to pledge

    3. Re:Screw you, Lawrence by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Are you reading the same article as me?

    4. Re:Screw you, Lawrence by Em+Adespoton · · Score: 1

      43651
              pledges

      $4,744,105
              pledged of $5,000,000 goal

      11 hours left
              time remaining to pledge

      Interesting... averaging at $100/pledge.

    5. Re:Screw you, Lawrence by Em+Adespoton · · Score: 1

      43986
              pledges

      $4,762,949
              pledged of $5,000,000 goal

      11 hours left

      You know, they might just do it.

      But isn't this only phase 2 of 3? It'll be interesting to see how far that $12mil actually goes.

    6. Re: Screw you, Lawrence by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Oh, those poor corporations! Who are we, the people, to try and stop them from running our country?

      It's their God-given right to buy laws!

    7. Re:Screw you, Lawrence by tokizr · · Score: 1
      If I got it correctly he (or whoever else is with him) will match the remaining 6.

      And if we meet that goal, we'll get it matched, for a total of $12 million raised.

  4. Politicians making a promise. by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 1

    So we're going to elect some politicians that promise to do something different? Where have I heard that before? (Every 2-6 years)

    I'm more a fan of the Wolf-PAC strategy - get a constitutional convention by having non-corrupt state-level politicians pass an amendment.

    1. Re:Politicians making a promise. by Concerned+Onlooker · · Score: 2

      "...get a constitutional convention by having non-corrupt state-level politicians pass an amendment."

      Clearly you haven't been paying attention. State level races are as bad as national level when it comes to money as influence.

      "So we're going to elect some politicians that promise to do something different? Where have I heard that before? (Every 2-6 years)"

      Your gutless resignation isn't doing any good. Lessig has a great idea and he understands just how fundamentally broken the system is. He is fighting the system from within the system, something I didn't think was possible, but it's a really worthy goal. Be part of an attempted solution. Go donate. (And yes, I have. Twice.)

      --
      http://www.rootstrikers.org/
    2. Re:Politicians making a promise. by Immerman · · Score: 2

      >He is fighting the system from within the system, something I didn't think was possible
      Quite. I have my doubts as to how successful it will actually be in the long term*, but the only other alternative seems to be violent uprising, about which I have even greater doubts as to the wisdom and efficacy of. So I've got my fingers crossed and am cheering him on mightily.

      * I'm betting there's 160 or so people who will gladly donate a few tens of millions each out of their pocket change to lobby against such reform if this movement becomes a credible threat. But we are still at least superficially a democracy, and staging a public lobbyist battle against the populace could backfire badly at the polls.

      --
      --- Most topics have many sides worth arguing, allow me to take one opposite you.
    3. Re:Politicians making a promise. by shutdown+-p+now · · Score: 1

      And with $12 million, there's a lot of publicity to be bought.

  5. Thinking of Donating? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: -1

    There's a sucker born every minute!

  6. If you take the bait by Anonymous Coward · · Score: -1

    If you take the bait, and this ends up getting funded, do not be surprised when we replace one "ocracy" with another "ocracy."

    That's all this guy is after - putting power in his own court by using the government to oppress people who do not agree with his point of view.

    1. Re:If you take the bait by Em+Adespoton · · Score: 4, Insightful

      If you take the bait, and this ends up getting funded, do not be surprised when we replace one "ocracy" with another "ocracy."

      That's all this guy is after - putting power in his own court by using the government to oppress people who do not agree with his point of view.

      At least Lessig has a track record and is putting his name and reputation to this.

      Then again, AC has a track record and , er, oh well.

    2. Re:If you take the bait by Impy+the+Impiuos+Imp · · Score: 2

      If you think the system's broken now, try later when the only people who get to run are those who can cobble together enough votes to get government funding, which is to say, the two main parties as they currently stand.

      The only people to even touch on that percentage the past fifty years were Ross Perot, who funded himself (this will be illegal now???) and John Anderson, the libertarian candidate in 1980.

      Yes, this will fix the problem...in the sense of entrenching the status quo even more.

      Thanks but no thanks.

      The entire front page of that kickstarter is nothing but generic fix the government platitudes...by design...as many politicians have blabbered about in innumerable campaigns of the past...for the purpose of getting you onboard fantasizing what *you* care about is what *they're* talking about.

      --
      (-1: Post disagrees with my already-settled worldview) is not a valid mod option.
    3. Re: If you take the bait by JWW · · Score: 5, Interesting

      Exactly! I refuse it to support Mayday until they stand up for term limits. I asked a question about this in the "Ask Larry about Mayday" story. Then they used a "new and improved format" for his responses and dumped my +5 rated question.

      Mayday, if they succeed will give us the same thing we have now, lifetime legislators. Their voucher system will end up a Massive advantage to incumbents.

    4. Re: If you take the bait by sumdumass · · Score: 1

      Am i the only one who thought the may day was about the soviet style communist celebrations?

      I have trouble trusting it on name alone. But you have a good point as well ss many others.

    5. Re: If you take the bait by guises · · Score: 2

      The grandparent was talking about some kind of fictional first-past-the-post campaign funding system that no one has proposed. You are saying that the voucher system will give a massive advantage to incumbents. Could you explain your position? Vouchers are given by voters to the candidates of their choosing - how does this give an advantage to incumbents?

    6. Re: If you take the bait by felixrising · · Score: 1

      And this is worse than the current system how?

    7. Re: If you take the bait by Trailer+Trash · · Score: 1

      Am i the only one who thought the may day was about the soviet style communist celebrations?

      I have trouble trusting it on name alone. But you have a good point as well ss many others.

      You're not the only one who noticed that. The utter cluelessness to start with "May One" and they move to calling it "May Day" is staggering.

      --
      Do you have ESP?
    8. Re: If you take the bait by medusa-v2 · · Score: 1

      ... because if you can't fix everything, you'd better not try to fix anything? Guess we'll find out what really happens.

    9. Re: If you take the bait by fustakrakich · · Score: 1

      If you want to know how well term limits works, you should read up a little on Mexican politics. It's not called the Institutional Party for nothing.

      Lessig's position is bullshit. He want to stomp all over the 1st Amendment. Money has no influence of its own. It's people's desire for it, and that is not being addressed.

      --
      “He’s not deformed, he’s just drunk!”
    10. Re:If you take the bait by sconeu · · Score: 1

      I actually did some minor volunteer work for the Anderson campaign in '80. He ran as an Independent, not as a Libertarian.

      --
      General Relativity: Space-time tells matter where to go; Matter tells space-time what shape to be.
    11. Re: If you take the bait by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      > I refuse it to support Mayday until they stand up for term limits.

      Term limits sound great. But as is the case with every simplistic solution, they are no panacea. Term limits will enable professional lobbyists - they will be the experts with decades of experience and contacts and our elected representatives will be perpetual newbies - easily fooled and manipulated.

      The only real answer is more engaged electorate, there are no short-cuts for better governance. But there are impediments and the imbalance of influence enabled by wealth is the biggest one there is.

    12. Re: If you take the bait by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      > It's people's desire for it, and that is not being addressed.

      So lessig is the one spouting bullshit because the sane approach is to fundamentally change human nature.
      Fucking geektards.

    13. Re: If you take the bait by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      May Day is an ancient spring festival, and long predates the Soviet Union. It is still celebrated in Western Europe, where it is free of any overt political overtones.

      You're stuck in Cold War thinking...

      http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/May_Day

    14. Re: If you take the bait by Bing+Tsher+E · · Score: 1

      Was it clueless, or was it deliberate?

      Mayday, incidentally, should be a strikingly American day on the calendar, as it commemorates the May Day Massacre which happened in Chicago. The people killed were Communists and Anarchists, though, so it isn't gonna go on the Official Holiday Calendar in the US.

    15. Re: If you take the bait by fustakrakich · · Score: 1

      Beats the hell out of prohibition. Maybe you should study how well that works also.

      --
      “He’s not deformed, he’s just drunk!”
    16. Re: If you take the bait by sumdumass · · Score: 1

      And so is te swatzstika or however it is spelled. Still, when i see someone walking down the street with one tatoo'd to his forehead, i think charlie manson.

      Events more recent tend to carry more weight to peoplr. Saying i'm sruck in the cold war whrn you reference something ancient is a bit odd isn't it?

    17. Re: If you take the bait by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Pst, if you give your Voucher to Obama I hear they will give you a free phone...

  7. I wish I could do this! by EmagGeek · · Score: -1, Redundant

    Man, I'd love to get $12M from a bunch of suckers on the promise of making government better.

    This sounds just like any other congressional campaign or something. It's the same tired crap we hear every couple of years.

    "Things are BROKEN! If you don't pay me to fix them, children will starve and women will be forced to have babies they don't want!"

    1. Re:I wish I could do this! by Anonymous Coward · · Score: -1

      Man, I'd love to get $12M from a bunch of suckers on the promise of making government better.

      This sounds just like any other congressional campaign or something. It's the same tired crap we hear every couple of years.

      "Things are BROKEN! If you don't pay me to fix them, children will starve and women will be forced to have babies they don't want!"

      Except that's not how they're acting at all, shit dick.

    2. Re:I wish I could do this! by EmagGeek · · Score: 2

      Are you kidding me? It's called the MAYDAY PAC.

      MAYDAY, as in, "OMG this is an emergency! You have to do this or people are going to DIE!"

      The very name of the thing is designed to elicit an unnecessary sense of urgency and an irrational emotional state in order to extract money.

      It's classic self-serving political behavior.

    3. Re:I wish I could do this! by Em+Adespoton · · Score: 2

      The difference here is that the politicians know that votes are fickle, but money is money.

      I just thought of another problem with this though: for money to really speak, it has to at least have the appearance of being a continual stream. That means that once this $12mil warchest is used up, there has to be assurances that there will be ANOTHER war chest lined up to keep supporting things. Otherwise, it's easier to go with the other PAC who wants to keep things as they are, but will only donate $3mil/year.... for the next 20 years.

      Lessig has to ensure this thing stays funded not just until the PAC's goals are realized, but until the goals of those being funded are realized. Otherwise, other deeper-running money may speak louder.

    4. Re:I wish I could do this! by EmagGeek · · Score: 1

      That's right. We can't forget the invariable dipping that must come later. I get such pleas in emails from various PACs every single day.

      "We've accomplished so much, but we must have your continued support to keep going! Send us even MOAR MONEEZ!"

      If it walks like a duck, talks like a duck, and acts like a duck, guess what...

    5. Re:I wish I could do this! by brownerthanu · · Score: 4, Informative

      it has to at least have the appearance of being a continual stream

      Yes I think you are right. I, personally, am willing to support the fund year after year. I hope others will too.

    6. Re:I wish I could do this! by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      To have any use they need to continualy get money - so yes, ofcourse they will keep asking for money. Do you think solving problems can just be done with a one-time fee? so this is exactly what they are supposed to do, keep raising money for their cause. (you do not have to agree with their cause, but that does not mean they are scamming you, it means the currents system is set up to require a continious stream of money - even when doing "good")

      This quacks distinctively unlike a duck

    7. Re:I wish I could do this! by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      It's a witch?

    8. Re:I wish I could do this! by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 1

      http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/May_Day not http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Mayday

    9. Re:I wish I could do this! by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Except it is a duck! It is completely indistinguishable from every other sleazeball PAC out there that has its own self-interest at heart.

    10. Re: I wish I could do this! by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      > MAYDAY, as in, "OMG this is an emergency! You have to do this or people are going to DIE!"

      OK that's it, /. is being raided by some retarded conservative site because only you would be dumb enough to think that's what the name refers to.

      It's MAY. DAY. A DAY in MAY. The month. It refers to a point in time. I'll let you figure out why that time is important.

    11. Re: I wish I could do this! by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      I wish you luck in educating the users of Slashdot, however after all these years they still don't fucking understand the difference between copyright and trademark, so good luck getting them to understand the difference between mayday and May Day. (And the significant socialist/communist connection in the name they chose is why I have no interest in supporting them.)

    12. Re:I wish I could do this! by Bing+Tsher+E · · Score: 1

      That's Mayday the event, not the sound of alarm. Mayday is also known as International Workingman's Day.

      Don't you remember the old newsreels of Soviet tanks and trucks bearing missiles, rolling through Moscow for the annual Mayday Parade?

  8. Creative Commons by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 5, Informative

    Lessig is the guy who helped get Creative Commons off the ground. He actually does stuff. This isn't the same old story.

    1. Re:Creative Commons by brownerthanu · · Score: 5, Informative

      Yes. He has a long history of general badassery. There are only a few people who I can think of who have the reputation and intelligence to properly navigate a project of this scale, and he is certainly one of them. I really hope that the fund makes it through to the next stage. It looks like it will.

    2. Re:Creative Commons by Charliemopps · · Score: 3, Insightful

      Right. I disagree with him for the most part politically. But his work so far in my eyes has been intelligent, refined and not of the sort I have a lot of distaste in. When he disagrees with something I support, I can generally look at his argument as a refutation of my own as apposed to some ad hominem attack. He has a point, I can think about it and argue against it or support it. I usually still feel I'm right, but it's not like a line from Anne Coulter or Alan Baldwin where I know I'm going to disagree before they even finish the sentence. He's a worthy opponent which is a rare thing in this modern, black and white, low brow political scene.

  9. He wants to oppress the poor corporations! by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    Is /. being raided by neocon trolls?

    1. Re:He wants to oppress the poor corporations! by dosius · · Score: 1

      Raided? I think they've been here from the beginning.

      --
      What you hear in the ear, preach from the rooftop Matthew 10.27b
  10. Made it! by MalleusEBHC · · Score: 5, Informative

    The counter just tipped over $5M a moment ago. Let's see what Lessig et al. can do with our (mine and 47K other people's) money.

    1. Re:Made it! by Blakey+Rat · · Score: 1

      If he's successful, he'll take tax money from you and 300 million others and give it to candidates running for office.

      If he's unsuccessful, you'll be a sucker and we'll all be a lot better off.

      --
      Comment of the year
    2. Re:Made it! by no-body · · Score: 0

      If he's successful, he'll take tax money from you and 300 million others and give it to candidates running for office.

      If he's unsuccessful, you'll be a sucker and we'll all be a lot better off.

      If a functional democratic system treats every candidate the same way in supporting i. e. financing after a certain popularity threshold is reached, who would that entity be other than an entity of the governing system in place?

      As it is currently in the US, it's a hotchpotch of corruption destroying the very foundation of democracy. Can't even guarantee voting integrity across the board when some goons thinking doing the right thing are turning the screws somewhere in secret.

      As for your aversion of using tax money used - where do you think is all that corporate money coming from? Who gets bilked and taken to the cleaner so the coffers of the "higher ups" in the pyramid - corporations as persons or individuals are overflowing?

      Whenever you pay something, someone is taking a cut from it - at least you have the sales tax written on your receipt and there you know what is taken out.

      I am happy that I can see my sales tax in roads getting fixed, public places kept in order, traffic light functioning, police working with gangs to keep the violence in check etc.

      If you want to call me a sucker, look in the mirror to see one!

    3. Re:Made it! by Blakey+Rat · · Score: 2

      I have no problem with laws *limiting* campaign donations. If Lessig's campaign was aimed at that goal, I might even contribute myself.

      But I do have a problem with the government taking my tax money, and giving it to some political candidate so they can buy TV commercials. That is what both of his proposals involve.

      As for your aversion of using tax money used - where do you think is all that corporate money coming from?

      Whether or not it *does* come from there does not change the fact that it *should not* come from there.

      --
      Comment of the year
    4. Re:Made it! by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Less money to wage the various endless wars.

    5. Re:Made it! by no-body · · Score: 0

      I have no problem with laws *limiting* campaign donations

      I have - they should be e-liminated, not limited. There will always be backdoors and workarounds.

      Think the US Supreme Court with it's corporate-tinted philosophy would support that or the politicians cutting off their funding?

      The system is purely money-driven, doubtful if the idea behind MAYDAY-PAC can change that, but worth a try.

      http://www.scu.edu/ethics/publ...

    6. Re:Made it! by Blakey+Rat · · Score: 2

      I have - they should be e-liminated, not limited.

      Ok. Fine. That works too. But you're missing the point.

      The issue I have with this entire thing is they want to use *my* tax money to buy ads for politicians I don't support. If they have another solution to the problem that doesn't involve spending my money, well great. But that's not what Lessig is soliciting money for right now. He's soliciting money to (effectively) raise my tax rate, with the additional funds going towards political campaigns.

      I also have to wonder how many people actually read their proposal instead of the feel good vagueness on the homepage... it seems strange to me that $5 million-worth of donors would actually want this. But maybe I'm just projecting.

      The system is purely money-driven, doubtful if the idea behind MAYDAY-PAC can change that, but worth a try.

      If the problem is, "money has too much influence", I don't see how adding more money into the system could possibly change that. But hey, whatever.

      --
      Comment of the year
    7. Re:Made it! by no-body · · Score: 1

      I have - they should be e-liminated, not limited.

      Ok. Fine. That works too. But you're missing the point.

      The issue I have with this entire thing is they want to use *my* tax money to buy ads for politicians I don't support.

      Your point: Well, that has been tried, reducing tax you pay being used for stuff you don't like - try holding back the % used for war spending if you don't like it and see what happens. Looks like a hassle.

      The tax system and government should be trustworthy, apparently they are not. Why is a good question. Not sure who the bigger crooks - corporate or government head-hanchos and who is doing more harm to the greater part of a population?

      With Lessing - let's see what happens if he can avoid the ego trip and big head from getting Step 1 and Step 2 in his game together and stick to his plans, it may fail or not. Maybe he comes from another angle with more smarts for the better of normal people. Crowd-sourcing and PAC may be new and disappointment is probably big in people about what is happening with no real remedy in sight. With the small amounts of $ 3 and $ 4 spending on campaigns - everyone seems to be doing it now and there is a limit to exploit this.

      Maybe he makes written and public contracts with politicians to hold them liable on their promises or better have commitments they later stick to in order to get funded. Sure is better than the humble/mumble backroom stuff going on right now.

      It will show.

    8. Re:Made it! by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      > I have no problem with laws *limiting* campaign donations.

      Unfortunately for us all the scotus does have a problem with such laws, so that door is closed.
      What else you got?

    9. Re:Made it! by MalleusEBHC · · Score: 1

      First, your taxes are spent on things you don't agree with. So are mine and everyone else's. You have a right to complain about how that money is spent, but nobody sane advocates a system where your taxes are only spent on things with which you agree.

      That said, I'm not convinced that spending tax money to support campaigns is the ideal solution. However, it's perhaps the only solution that is politically viable but could still produce meaningful change. The Supreme Court refuses to put any limits on campaign spending, and fat chance for a constitutional amendment to overrule them passing.

    10. Re:Made it! by drinkypoo · · Score: 1

      Either fair elections are important to you, or they aren't. The system you propose is the system we have already (by refusing to consider alternatives) and you will note that your proposal has already been tried and found to be unfair.

      If you have an alternate proposal for making elections fair, and letting voices be heard, we're all interested. If all you want to do is complain, why should anyone care?

      --
      "You're right," Fisheye says. "I should have set it on 'whip' or 'chop.'"
    11. Re:Made it! by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      We can do a constitutional amendment without engaging Congress - it takes 2/3 of the state houses passing a bill requesting a convention. That's it. The problem is at that point, EVERYTHING is open for discussion as an amendment - stopping marriage equality, a permanent tax cap, total abortion bans, compulsory firearm ownership (and fully automatic ones too!), even allowing individual states to leave the Union at their whim. The danger now is that there's so many gerrymandered state houses that this is actually within the grasp of possibility. That would whip these "amend the state constitution" wackos into an orgiastic frenzy of greed and corruption more than they already are.

    12. Re:Made it! by Bing+Tsher+E · · Score: 1

      'fair' is one of those words like 'good' that are really hard to pin down to what is meant when they are used. Let's substitute in another vague word:

      Either good elections are important to you, or they aren't. The system you propose is the system we have already (by refusing to consider alternatives) and you will note that your proposal has already been tried and found to be ungood.

      There. That didn't add to or change the meaning of what you typed at all.

    13. Re:Made it! by drinkypoo · · Score: 1

      There. That didn't add to or change the meaning of what you typed at all.

      Horseshit, and also horseshit.

      --
      "You're right," Fisheye says. "I should have set it on 'whip' or 'chop.'"
    14. Re:Made it! by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      The counter just tipped over $5M a moment ago. Let's see what Lessig et al. can do with our (mine and 47K other people's) money.

      I don't have to prognosticate to guess he will spend it on campaigns for politicians in either the Democrat or Republican parties. He can't possibly believe the vision of his chosen candidates matters in the face of the party group-mind.

    15. Re:Made it! by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      The issue I have with this entire thing is they want to use *my* tax money to buy ads for politicians I don't support.

      Once you have paid the money as tax it is not yours any more, just like it is not yours after you have paid to fill up your car with petrol. If the people you have given the money to do things with it that you really don't like then don't vote for or buy from them again. Keep that up and pretty soon you won't be voting for anyone or buying anything!

  11. crossed the 5million mark at about 9:30 Eastern. by emptybody · · Score: 4, Insightful

    Well Done All Around.
    It sickens me that we must "buy back" our democracy.

    --
    comment directly in my journal
  12. From Canada by Valtor · · Score: 2

    I am Canadian and actually wanted to pledge for this. :-)

    Hope this works out for you guys.

    --
    "Sockets are the standard networking API, also useful for stopping your eyes from falling onto your cheeks" zeromq.org
    1. Re:From Canada by rewarp · · Score: 2

      Considering how the US government screws non-US countries, I would have donated too. Hope it all works out.

      --
      In adding a sig, for no other reason, than for aesthetics.
  13. 20:00 MST July 4 total by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    At 20:00 (8:00 PM), July 4 Mountain Standard Time, the total is $5,039,693. Apparently the extra ~300,000.- came in between when it was posted and now. I don't know if Lessig's PAC is as widely known as it could be, but online support will spread to wider sources. He will likely need them if he is going to his his next goal (and I *really* would like him to his his next goal).

  14. Interesting... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    He'll probably take a bullet for his efforts, but bravo.

    1. Re:Interesting... by Mystiq · · Score: 1

      The civil unrest is pretty tangible on the circles I visit on the Internet, and that's spilling over into Real Life (tm). Congress' approval rating is at an all-time low. This country has been around 400 years. It's never been lower. (Okay, it was probably lower back when the Tea Party actually meant something.)

      Now, I'm not saying it's going to happen, but sometimes I think this country just needs another civil war against its government. After all, the United States was founded by British colonialists taking up arms against their government. Why couldn't it happen again? I'm sure some parts of the country are closer to doing so than others.

      It's hard to fight back within the bounds of the law when the law is so against you.

    2. Re: Interesting... by cyber-vandal · · Score: 1

      It's also pretty hard to fight back when the other side is so much better armed than you. A bunch of NRA members with assault rifles won't last long against tanks and fighter jets without outside support and the most powerful of the US' enemies are too far away to give any meaningful support and taking that support would immediately lose any popular support you might get.

    3. Re: Interesting... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      It's also pretty hard to fight back when the other side is so much better armed than you.

      While it is true that the American military is far better equipped than the civilians they serve, I have to wonder if it matters in the case of a populist rebellion. If a large portion of Americans decide to exercise their second amendment rights to overthrow a corrupt government (the actual reason for the second amendment) how many american soldiers would actually be willing to fight them off.

      I think the corrupt american government should be more concerned that their well equipped armed forces don't decide to start the revolution themselves.

      Historically, when the wealth gap between rich and poor gets too wide a violent revolution usually results and, I dare say, historically, violent revolution has been the only avenue for significant political change in these situations. I applaud any attempt to avoid the path of violence, but i fear that any such attempt will prove fruitless against the entrenched powers that be.

  15. Re:crossed the 5million mark at about 9:30 Eastern by phantomfive · · Score: 2

    If the people don't put effort into democracy, it will disappear. By definition. Voting is cool but it's not enough to make a democracy.

    --
    "First they came for the slanderers and i said nothing."
  16. $5M goal reached ! by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    As I'm typing this, the Mayday PAC has successfully garnered $5,086,226 of donation

    Congrats !

  17. Re:crossed the 5million mark at about 9:30 Eastern by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    Congress has wasted far more than the cost of our donations in the last year alone. I'm happy that I will soon have the opportunity, hopefully, to stop paying government buffoons to steal/waste/divert the money we pay in taxes. I don't know about you, but my contribution to Mayday.us pales in comparison.

    NR

  18. Re:crossed the 5million mark at about 9:30 Eastern by Mystiq · · Score: 1

    "Voting is cool but it's not enough to make a democracy." True in so many ways.

    You did read the bits about the fact that voting seems to have no effect most of the time? (Or how about this one.)

    Anecdotal evidence could work here just as well. Citizens United represents everything you need to know about politics in the United States. If you don't have enough money, you don't have enough "free speech." The polls say more than 90% of the country does not want Comcast to buy Time Warner Cable, and for some good reasons. Do you think that'll sway the regulators, who are being smooched up the ass by Comcast lobbyists?

    Or what about what happened to Obama's election promises about getting rid of lobbyists and being transparent? I do believe he was pressured by the incumbents into changing his mind. He might have been honest when he first got elected, but, as they say, the system is too strong. He got borged into it.

  19. Re:crossed the 5million mark at about 9:30 Eastern by BitZtream · · Score: 1

    Then you shouldn't have allowed it to be sold in the first place.

    The whole thing is still silly, a single person like Bill Gates, Larry Ellison or Steve Job's wife (to pick the popular easy to recognize names) can easily out fund this PAC with nothing more than a signature and a laugh about it ... there are thousands of people who can do it. This PAC is one.

    --
    Persistent Volume manager for Kubernetes - https://github.com/dwimsey/openshift-pvmanager
  20. Re:crossed the 5million mark at about 9:30 Eastern by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    Doesn't sicken me. Price isn't blood.

    Yet.

  21. Oligarchy or democracy? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    I hope America starts to realize how important this is. We are not a democracy any more. We are an oligarchy. And if you don't agree to that, atleast agree that we have swayed towards an oligarchy over the past 20 years.

  22. Re:crossed the 5million mark at about 9:30 Eastern by Bing+Tsher+E · · Score: 1

    Or what about what happened to Obama's election promises about getting rid of lobbyists and being transparent? I do believe he was pressured by the incumbents into changing his mind. He might have been honest when he first got elected, but, as they say, the system is too strong. He got borged into it.

    Or, he was a lying, conniving SOB from the start, and like any other politician said anything he had to to get elected. Our only option is to cut off the air supply (taxes.)

    It's all about the power, baby.

  23. Too many left wing PACs already by jlgreer1 · · Score: 1

    The left already has enough PAC money from billionaire foreigners. No thanks!

  24. Matching fund source? by dabrowsa · · Score: 1

    Presumably the matching funds come from Very Rich People. I don't see how a plan tha depends on VRP can suucced in freeing politics from them.

    --
    `Perche non reggi tu, o sacra fame de l'oro,l'appetito de' mortali?'
  25. Reform to how we fund elections is primary by PotatoHead · · Score: 1

    Your term limit issue is secondary, as are many other issues.

    Whether or not we have term limits is a matter of reasoned public debate. Right now, we can't have that due to the money in politics problem.

    It is unreasonable for you to connect your issue to the core, systemic problem of how elections are funded.

    That is perhaps the biggest misconception and hangup people have. This isn't transactional politics. It's not like you get something in return, or trade-offs get made. We do that now, and the money biases it away from the overall best interests of the people.

    Really, if we reform money in politics, a fair, reasoned discussion will happen. Or, at least a much better one will happen.

    Term limits, and other things get decided then, not now.

    This is a single issue effort. It is systemic, not partisan, and not intended to remedy anything other than the basic issue of money in politics.

    --
    Blogging because I can...
    1. Re: Reform to how we fund elections is primary by JWW · · Score: 1

      Thank you, that is a well thought out and reasoned answer. That's what I was looking for with my question to Lessig.

      I can fully understand that term limits may be a "next thing" sort of activity for his PAC. But without an answer to my question, the answer could also be that he doesn't believe that they are important and will eventually be needed.

      I really sincerely wanted to know his answer.

  26. Re:crossed the 5million mark at about 9:30 Eastern by EmagGeek · · Score: 1

    This isn't an attempt to "buy back" our democracy. It's an attempt by another group of politically-motivated individuals to gain more influence and power in Washington.

  27. (potatohead here) by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    Yeah, I get it. Sometimes how they approached those kinds of questions seemed a bit abrupt for some people, and I think they misunderstand how deeply people feel the need to not trust, and question, and everybody is wondering "what's in it for me?"

    A better overall debate really, and that isn't too sexy. Credit Larry for at least framing it up reasonably enough to make an attempt.

    Really, it doesn't matter what his answer is. If we actually do reform money in politics, term limits along with a pile of other things will then get debated and legislated in a way we are very highly likely to find better than they would now, if they are addressed at all.