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."
What 2014 shows most clearly is the power of partisanship in our elections. Whatever else voters wanted, they wanted first their team to win.
Maybe they showed that. Or maybe they showed that the voters don't want to put Lawrence Lessig in charge of determining who gets free speech and who does not. Maybe the voters think that individuals shouldn't lose their right to express their support for a candidate financially just because they're acting in a group. Maybe the voters think that the voters should be exposed to more information on a candidate than just what the news shows them, because the news goes out of its way to favor certain candidates and certain policies. Maybe the voters think that campaign finance laws invariably turn into incumbent protection schemes, and they think there's a lot of crappy incumbents. In short, maybe the voters rejected Lessig's idea because they think it's a bad idea.
Also, this was a wave election for Republicans. I wouldn't expect anyone using Communist imagery (and who launched on a Communist holiday*) to do well in this environment.
*If a leftist wants to convince me that his organization, which is named after a website URL and so can't contain a space, should be interpreted as "Mayday" rather than "May Day," there are 364 better days to launch the organization on than May 1st. You'll note Wolf PAC doesn't have this problem.
Why not become the person who cares about the candidates and issues? Even if just quietly and personally. There are some sites out there like BallotPedia that are a great resource when an upcoming election is near. It'll show you the positions up for election, the candidates, and any additional questions/measures that will be on the ballot. Some night before the election, look at the people up for election, spend a little time looking at their accomplishments (or lack thereof) and what they advocate, make a list of who you'll vote for (on your phone perhaps), and take the list to the booth. I know it helps me a lot.