Slashdot Mirror
Mayday PAC Goes 2 For 8
An anonymous reader writes: Lawrence Lessig's Mayday.us project had a bold goal: create a super PAC to end all super PACs. It generated significant support and raised over $10 million, which it spent endorsing a group of candidates for the recent mid-term elections and the primaries beforehand. The results weren't kind. Only two of the eight candidates backed by Mayday won their elections, and both of those candidates were quite likely to win anyway. Lessig was understandably displeased with the results. In a post on the Mayday site, he said, "What 2014 shows most clearly is the power of partisanship in our elections. Whatever else voters wanted, they wanted first their team to win."
Kenneth Vogel, author of Big Money, a recent book on the rise of super PACs, was critical of of Mayday's efforts, saying, "While voters do express high levels of disgust about the state of campaign finance and the level of corruption in Washington, they tend to actually cast votes more on bread-and-butter economic issues." Still, Lessig is hopeful for the future: "We moved voters on the basis of that message. Not enough. Not cheaply enough. But they moved."
Kenneth Vogel, author of Big Money, a recent book on the rise of super PACs, was critical of of Mayday's efforts, saying, "While voters do express high levels of disgust about the state of campaign finance and the level of corruption in Washington, they tend to actually cast votes more on bread-and-butter economic issues." Still, Lessig is hopeful for the future: "We moved voters on the basis of that message. Not enough. Not cheaply enough. But they moved."
The results weren't kind. Only two of the eight candidates backed by Mayday won their elections, and both of those candidates were quite likely to win anyway. "Whatever else voters wanted, they wanted first their team to win."
Well, duh! Most people don't want to switch because that would mean they were wrong before.
"We moved voters on the basis of that message. Not enough. Not cheaply enough. But they moved."
Not really ...
Until you get proportional representation (which actually gives 3rd parties a chance) it's going to be "Partisanship For The Win!"
"Transparent" is a shit show that trades on every stereotype going. A man in drag is NOT a transsexual.
There were plenty of SuperPACs that raised more than that for individual races this election cycle, and these were midterm elections. In 2016 $10M will be chump change for election fundraising.
If Citizens United sought to disenfranchise voters as much as possible from the election process, they will accomplish it once that election is over and voters feel that their money can no longer help out in any meaningful way.
Damn_registrars has no butt-hole. Damn_registrars has no use for a butt-hole.
Most people - about 80% by some estimates - have a fairly clear idea of what they believe, and that belief corresponds roughly to either the Democrat or Republican party. They vote according to their belief, not "Yay my team". Lessig's view is far too shallow, and in all likelihood he's blind to his own bias.
Contribute to civilization: ari.aynrand.org/donate
Yeah, partisanship has some to do with it. But the biggest problem that Mayday.us faces is apathy and the fact that nationally 62 percent of those legally eligible to vote did not do so.
If you are American and you voted Tuesday, regardless of who you voted for, good for you! But if you did not vote and you were legally entitled to do so, go look in the mirror and you'll see why American government is as fucked up as it is. When 62 percent of eligible voters do not do so, America gets the government it deserves. And don't give me that "My not voting is a protest!" bullshit. All you do by not voting is magnify the voting power of the far right, which is the group most likely to go vote in American elections, and is the very group that is most likely to support the leaders you do not like.
I want a new quote. One that won't spill. One that don't cost too much. Or come in a pill.
What they want to do is choke out conservative money, because that's the primary way Republicans get heard when leftists control the culture.
Mayday PAC is transparent in this regard- they ran a video contest accepting amateur-made ads supporting their cause. A video attacking Tom Steyer, the left's Koch, won the popular vote by a large margin. They picked another video based on the 'judgement of their panel of experts.'
Alcohol, Tobacco and Firearms should be the name of a store, not a government agency.
Is there some non-campaign finance related restrictions on speech that they're endorsing? If so, I'm not aware of it and I'd like to know more.
No, the restrictions on who can run campaign advertisements are the free speech restrictions that cause people to oppose Lessig's group (and other groups, like Wolf PAC, which have the same goals.)
Think about it like this. Think about the percentage of "straight news" stories that are in fact supporting one candidate or opposing the other. Most of them, right?
That's the media. Those stories don't get covered by Lessig's restrictions, but ads in favor of the guy the media opposes are restricted. That's the big problem with Mayday style free speech restrictions. It lets some people and some corporations (media corporations and the people who run them) are allowed to say, print, or broadcast whatever they want to affect the election, but everyone else will get penalized by the government for trying to affect the election.
Lessig's big bet is that the media will agree with him and support his guys more often. That's the problem with Mayday.
In the last six years which party has taken away more of our personal freedom's? The answer is obvious and makes your whole one party is evil argument quite invalid.
That is a sad tale of blindness in you, and has nothing to do with the post you are responding to.
Plese, share with us:
Which party thinks the public should not be allowed to encrypt their data? BOTH
Which party thinks the federal government should control education (and hence the economy) and pre-plan our economy for us? BOTH
Which party thinks we are always at war with ever-changing enemies, and government power must constantly be extended for "these trying times" that never end? BOTH
Which party thinks the U.S. should control the world (never mind "no entangling alliances'...such as "Five Eyes")? BOTH
Which party thinks the NSA should form partnerships with private corporations (after having already been warned last time they tried this with phone taps) and that retroactively legalizing things makes everything ok? BOTH
Which party thinks that once they get in office, all the prior crimes committed by the prior administration can be dismissed and ignored? BOTH
They behave the same. There is only one party. That party stands for:
-- interdependence instead of independence, ruining our economy and our schools by pre-planning a "global" economy with fixed wages instead of letting the free market run its course, ripping our nation's True Aims to shreds, requiring we give up more and more freedoms to protect us from international threats that never would've been problems had we not overextended ourselves all around the world, abandoning our "independence" in the name of more profits and unnecessary alliances
-- continual dismissal of the public's right to know how their government is run, while at the same time demanding the public be tracked and monitored more and more
-- massive hypocrisy, where "public servants" get more benefits and make more than most people get from their full-time jobs
What exactly is different between the two "parties" again?
You are "dumb" if you think "your" party is any different than the previous administration.
They don't allow any "party" that holds the prior office accountable for their crimes.
It is just a merry-go-round, you look the other way upon entering, and they look the other way once you leave.
Please share with us the difference, there really is none.
You get corporate fascism (merging of private and public sectors, time and time again public money disappears into private hands, for "education" or "safety" or "the economy") EITHER WAY.
You get the continual erosion of freedoms EITHER WAY.
You get global corporations who are reckless and the taxpayer bails them out again and again EITHER WAY.
You get lawbreaking with impunity, again and again, EITHER WAY.
Noone with any "prestige" goes to prison, any fine is laughable.
The "normal" person's life would be ruined for the same crime. When a corporation or person of power breaks the same law,
they get a stern talking to, to fool the gullible public, and a settlement out of court with no admission of wrongdoing. Noone goes to jail, noone is fired, no accounts are frozen.
Even when someone is impeached, they do no jail time, they are always "pardoned" because "it is best for the American people that we move on"
So how exactly are the (R)s and (D)s any different again? They both are reckless and have granted themselves powers and consider themselves far above any normal person. "Public servant" has now become "private servant" in every case.
Why should he not worry? He is working hard to earn that money if he is thinking about leaving it as a legacy for his children to enjoy that should be his choice. What difference does it matter if its $5 or $5 million, or hell $5 billion.
Its money he "made" and paid taxes on along the way already, none should have any claim on it, its disposition should be his discretion and his alone, the amount isn't important its a basic matter of principle.
Repeal the 17th Amendment TODAY! Also Please Read http://www.gnu.org/philosophy/right-to-read.html
He is working hard to earn that money if he is thinking about leaving it as a legacy for his children to enjoy that should be his choice. What difference does it matter if its $5 or $5 million, or hell $5 billion.
>Corporations cannot do anything that can get a jail sentence. A corporation cannot do anything at all. It is nothing more than a legal structure that people operate under.
so corporations are not people, I agree. They have been ruled in court to be people, which is bad, because as you've stated, they are clearly not people.