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.
"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."
But voters are easily convinced that if their freedom to form a corporate monopoly is central to their own economic future. I know a guy who drives a school bus and is worried sick about the estate tax.
The government is just another business, and people will want to buy pieces of it.
You can't put a band-aid over an asshole to stop the spread of shit. It's a problem inherent to the system.
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.
For now, at least. Too many votes in the same geographic region are required to win one paltry seat. This is why reform must target state legislative positions more than federal positions. If a third party won enough seats in a state to block a majority from the Democrats or Republicans, it would open the door to forcing the hands of the establishment in unprecedented ways. If they could hold onto that, it'd probably be a matter of time before they send either their own candidate to the governorship or attorney general or get a Democrat or Republican who meets their approval. And why does that matter? Because the states have tremendous law enforcement power and may of the more serious problems facing this country are matters of putting the right people in prison, not passing new laws.
I think the biggest thing Mayday PAC did wrong is that they were, in the end, massive hypocrites.
Their "competition" for the best video about the effect of big money was such an enormous debacle and a clear showing that their true goal was not to get money out of politics, but to get Conservative (and even libertarian) money out of politics. Their embracing and providing cover for Tom Steyer, who openly talked about influencing elections with large amounts of his money, makes Mayday PAC a bunch of liars.
http://freebeacon.com/politics...
If Mayday were true to its stated vision, they would have condemned Steyer's actions. That they did not condemn him like they constantly did the Koch brothers proves that they don't really want what they say they want.
On top of this, their support for a constitutional amendment that would allow congress to restrict speech, makes them a contemptable organization.
I really respect Lessig's views on copyrights and patents. His efforts with his Mayday PAC have made me lose great amounts of respect for him.
There are ideas that, no matter how much you try to dress them up, are still toxic to the electorate. No amount of money can change that; in fact, the more money spent on the advertising, the LESS appealing it gets.
Lessig's idea ignores this. Basically he seems to think that money buys elections. It helps, BUT YOU HAVE TO KNOW WHAT TO DO WITH IT.
You should look into wolf-PAC. They're gathering petitions to state legislatures to allow votes on a Constitutional Amendment to reinstate laws on political donations that the Supreme Court entirely threw out the window with that Citizens United 5-4 decision.
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
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.
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.
Tom Steyer gave a whole ton of money to get politicians to give speeches in support of his cause. (And they did it on the floor of the Senate in lieu of, you know, running the country. Talk about gridlock.) If you're against money in politics, regardless of who the money is going to, like Lessig claims to be, you should be against Steyer.
Perhaps, particularly in this last election cycle, the money would be better spent in the primaries. Clearly, the American voters wanted the Democrats to lose control of the Senate and to retain control of the House. For a number of reasons, that was the overriding issue, across the board.
If Lessig's PAC had worked to get more favorable candidates into position in the primaries, they might have had a bigger return on their dollar.
Just like sports teams who have payrolls much larger than their opponents often do not win championships, politicians who "benefit" from large PACs do not always win elections. For all the talk of being ready to listen to both (or more) candidates, most voters come in to it with a predefined checklist of positions a candidate must meet (or in some cases, not support). To clear that hurdle the opposing candidate(s) must appear to be significantly more charismatic, confident and competent than the others. Money does not buy that.
Proved that their hypothesis about the effect of big money on voting was wrong.
He's complaining that the money he spent to defeat the influence of money in politics didn't have any influence.
The proper lesson is that his basic thesis is wrong, that money doesn't always win elections. Meg Whitman was another example (if you have to ask who she? and what election? then you prove my point -- google "meg whitman election").
But being a statist fuck, that won't be the lesson he sees. Lessig's done a lot of nice work otherwise, but he's off the rails on this.
Infuriate left and right
> "What 2014 shows most clearly is the power of partisanship in our elections.
Duh. That is why NOTHING is going to change until we have preferential voting, such as instant runoff. Then people can vote their conscience and get new blood into power (independents, libertarians, other parties, etc) without fear of a party opposite of their view being unopposed. Otherwise it is just business as usual.
http://www.fairvote.org/
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/R...
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/I...
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.
I was sympathetic to Lessig's stated goal but I was MUCH more interested in strategically crippling the standing Criminal in Chief -- who just so happens to be, and should have been, public enemy #1 on Lessig's posterboard...not JUST for his "big and corrupt money is welcome" approach to politics but also to his utter disdain for Rule of Law in pretty much all regards. The past election achieved that. I am currently aware of only ONE VIABLE candidate for the Presidency next year who happens to advocate Constitutional government, ESPECIALLY privacy rights but also Constitutionally mandated war and adherence to the Bill of Rights in general. Yeah: Rand Paul. Only if Rand Paul wins the Republican nomination for President am I likely to support a Republican candidate for President next year -- even IF the Republican candidate takes Lessig's pledge. Stopping unconstitutional government is really the goal - and I think Lessig would agree with that. Trying to gradually tilt the US toward politically LAWFUL health while the patient it dying on the operating table and clearly is going zombie is admirable but not wise. We needed a tactical strike and, thankfully, we got one. ALL Americans who oppose tyranny and "big money in poltics" should appreciate the outcome we got. Our Criminal in Chief has been effectively quarantined for the duration of his lawful term. In general I hate the Republican party as much as I hate the Democratic Party. But GAME THEORY and keeping ones' eye on the REAL prize - the Constitution - dictated that tactics trump strategy at this time. Just to be clear, in the days of George Bush - our previous Criminal in Chief - I opposed HIM and I supported gridlock. I supported Obama in that pivotal election ONLY because I thought he meant what he said and, in particular, because I thought he would bring the banksters and other felons involved with government to trial. In retrospect, Obama had, obviously, had been purchased beforehand. So I made a mistake. As I recall Lessig made the same mistake. We are united in long term goal, I think, Lessig and I. But Lessig's strategy needed to be preempted by a tactical strike in this case. He should have known that, and perhaps he did, but he may have been afraid that would put off a lot of his donor base. BTW, Lessig USED to consider himself "libertarian"...we appear to have both moved on from that label. Me, I only seek lawful government: a government UTTERLY BOUND by its own law...which happens to be the Constitution together with legal Amendments. And Article 10 is especially important ... which is why it is the Amendment neither Party ossified Democrats nor Republicans like to mention, much less uphold. Amendment 10 is the last of Bill of Rights but it is first in terms of keeping government legal and decent.
Amendment 10: The powers not delegated to the United States by the Constitution, nor prohibited by it to the States, are reserved to the States respectively, or to the people.
Why did they spend money on the campaigns of candidates who were already quite likely to win? That seems like a suboptimal way to spend the funds at their disposal. Spend it exclusively on races where it might make a difference.
See subject
As someone who lives outside the US, and after seeing several articles talking about PACs, I have to ask: WTF is a PAC, and WhyTF should I care?
Political Action Committee. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/P...
You don't have to care; I wouldn't, if I lived outside the US.
Deal with reality - the world as it is - rather than ideality - the world as you would like it to be.
I spent 20 years as a political consultant, so I have a strong understanding of what it takes to win elections. Although Lawrence Lessig is a smart guy, he makes the mistake that's common to many other smart people. He assumes his intelligence and knowledge about one field should make conquering another field simple and easy. He's wrong in his diagnosis of the problem with U.S. politics and he's even more laughably wrong about how change happens. It's amazingly arrogant for him to believe that his tiny effort would make the slightest difference in what voters believe about the issue he cares about. He and his group are like tiny fish bumping against the side of a supertanker and wondering why they're not changing its course. He needs to stick to something he's at least somewhat qualified to deal with. He doesn't understand politics.
Political Action Committee. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/P...
I'd Googled it, but it just seems to be a way of funnelling money to politicians or for political objectives. S**t, that's been going on since (at least) ancient Rome, they called it ambitus.
Its a pot of money a lot of people put into usually with a single goal for an election.
Oh, so in Roman terms it's actually largitiones (referring to the act of providing money for political ends) rather than ambitus (a more general term for the crime of political corruption, including bribery) - see my other post above.
For Lessig's group to be successful, they need to stay out of the general election, and away from third parties.
1. Stay out of the general. Most congressional districts lean just enough Democrat or Republican than supporting the "favored" candidate is a waste of resources and favoring the "unfavored" candidate is too. If the race really is close, then (a) it will get really expensive, and (b) that candidate isn't likely to still be in Congress 10 years from now -- it's a tough district!
Instead, fight in the primaries. Go to districts where the Dem or Repub candidate is sure to win the general, whomever he or she is. Then, find like-minded candidates of that party willing to run in a primary. A primary race is cheaper and easier to influence -- and if you win it, you'll coast through the general and coast through reelections. Invest in both Democratic and Republican primaries, getting candidates who want the kind of campaign finance reform Lessig's group wants, and to hell with the rest of it. Bonus if the primary is "open" -- that is, there is no incumbent.
2. Stay away from third party candidates. First of all, they almost never win. There are what, two in the Senate (VT and ME senators Sanders and King, respectively), and zero in the House if memory serves. That's 2 out of 535. Terrible odds. Secondly, even if they do win -- they're independents! Their opinions change rather easily! They're unpredictable, and they take pride on being "mavericky." Look at the independents who gave good runs in 2014 -- very hard to predict where they would come down on the details of any campaign finance reform.
Lessig mistakenly got behind independents, foolishly believing that they had a shot in hell at winning. He also spent too much money in November, when the real action is between June and September.
Support a few technologists in Washington.
So they are going after the First Amendment.
You need to listen to someone other than Ted Cruz.
The Supreme Court ripped the First Amendment a new asshole in 2012 with their new concept that every dollar suddenly has free speech. "Going after the First Amendment" is a bullshit talking point made by people who directly benefit from corporate donations.
Well, duh! Most people don't want to switch because that would mean they were wrong before.
Either that or money doesn't buy votes as much as some believe it does.
Absolutely correct. The true currency of politics is votes not money. Its still a one person one vote system, not a one dollar one vote system. The 99% actually have the power, they just fail to use it.
Money is just a tool to persuade the indifferent voters and money's influence is magnified by party loyalty. If you are loyal to your party you are irrelevant. Your party can ignore you because they have your vote, the other party can ignore you because they can not get your vote.
There is a simple way for the 99% to regain power. Punitive Voting. If a candidate misbehaves or egregiously fails to act in the best interests of the citizenry then vote against that candidate. Period. No exception. It is only through punitive voting that voters can teach politicians to fear the voters wrath.
Want example of punitive voting, look at the most powerful lobbies in the country. The NRA and the AARP. They do not control politicians through money, they control them with their literally millions of members who *will* show up on election day and vote punitively if the politician have voted against the lobby. This is why Democrats who never accept a single dollar from the NRA will vote the NRA's way. They fear the NRA membership (and like minded folks). This punitive voting scheme needs to be used on a larger scale by the public at large.
If a sufficient number of voters have decided to remove a candidate from office no amount of campaign contributions can save the candidate.
Note that this is a long term strategy. It relies on a darwinian process. Politicians need to be seen as losing office due to large scale punitive voting. Only them will they adapt and the 99% regain control.
If you think there is a quick solution, an easy fix, you have been deluded by the status quo. Its going to take time and the longer we delay the farther off regaining control is.
And that's what American "elections" are turning into. The tools of the moneyed class aren't going to be what breaks the moneyed class's grip on political power.
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.
agree campaign reform is a 20-30 year project
you forgot the irony tags there comrade
Citizens United was founded in 1988.
Lawrence Person (lawrencepersonh@gmailh.com (remove all "h"s to mail)
http://www.lawrenceperson.com/
If Ted Cruze is saying the opposite of what you want done, then I'll start listening to him.
The supreme court did not rip the first amendment at all. It simply said that some forms of speech costs money and that people can pool together in order to afford that costs. It said that people who have already pooled together for other reasons can spend their resources on speech too.
Stopping that from happening is in fact denying free speech to those people in the same way you think it is bad. When people cannot pool their resources together to speak about their candidate or against another candidate, they have lost their ability to make speech that has any impact. This has nothing to do with corporate donations- when you tell people or corporations which are run by people and owned by people, that they can have all the free speech they want except when you do not agree with it or the way they are speaking- you have ripped the first amendment yourself.
I can see why you posted as AC. I wouldn't want anything so ill informed associated with me either.
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. People working for the corporation can do something illegal and those people can and do receive jail time. This concept of expecting corporations to go to jail is about the same as expecting the wife of a bank robber to go to jail simply because her lifestyle was raised while the bank robber spent the money he stole. It is akin to wanting to put the father of some 20 year old kid in jail because the kid deals drugs and pays rent to live in the detached garage.
In other words, your premise is lost on reality because you fail to see the reality of the situation. Corporations do no act, the people within them do act. Those people, when they get caught breaking the law, can and do go to jail. Therefore, it is a complete fallacy that they are people who can't be jailed.
It simply said that some forms of speech costs money and that people can pool together in order to afford that costs.
Yes, two brothers were free at last to "pool together" donating 0.05% of their wealth through shady corporations to politicians who thump people with Bibles and propose policies from bad science fiction novels. And it's a good thing, too- this was the most expensive American election in history and now we need the help of billionaires if we want to win!
You sound bitter from losing. We you involved in the last election?
I don't really care if two brothers pooled together or not. It is their choice not mine or yours and definitely not the US government's. They can pool together in order to get people who promise to ride unicorns backwards to congress twice a year if they want. All they are doing is getting a message out and if people like it, they will vote for them. If they do not, they will not vote for them. The Udall Gardner race is a good example of this. Despite tons of outside money actually misrepresenting and lieing about Gardner's positions (banning birth control), they like Gardner's message better and elected him instead.
You sound bitter from losing. We you involved in the last election?
Yeah, I voted with the majority (of the popular vote)- guilty as charged.
I don't really care if two brothers pooled together or not. It is their choice not mine or yours and definitely not the US government's.
It's "not the US government's anymore, only because some people now are so rich they can afford to legalize their activities. (The Mafia, OTOH, was never really good at infiltrating politics.)
lol.. It never was the government's choice to stop people from associating or speaking. There was never a need to legalize anything- just remove artificial restrictions which were unconstitutional and not supposed to be in place in the first place.
Or are you trying to say that the supreme court is corrupt and on the payroll of rich people? I highly doubt that considering some of the rulings being made.
This is true, but the whole reason the NRA and AARP are effective is that they have large numbers of people who will actually show up and ruin political careers over one vote in Congress. You have to have enormous unanimity in your organization to make it work. What's the single "99%" issue that you think you can make millions of people take that kind of stand?
2 for 8.
Thats actually a good start, for a first election.
I don't know why people expect rapid ground moving change to happen over night. If mayday was a real grassroots movement, it'd take it a long time for its people to gain the experiance enough to compete with corporate firms with lots of experiance. The demands of organizations full of unexperianced people to compete with proffesionals overnight is the reason why activist movements fail.
For a new concept its doing well considering how young it is.
>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.
....so lets take advantage of that with a Super PAC.
Sounds legit.
If you disagree with me on social issues, then it's pretty clear that you are a narrow-minded bigot.
This is true, but the whole reason the NRA and AARP are effective is that they have large numbers of people who will actually show up and ruin political careers over one vote in Congress. You have to have enormous unanimity in your organization to make it work. What's the single "99%" issue that you think you can make millions of people take that kind of stand?
An elected official egregiously voting against the interests of the people, of demonstrating a far greater loyalty to campaign contributions than to votes. The point being to punish those politicians who consider voters secondary to donors, and to tolerate politicians who consider donors secondary to voters. Ie to remind politicians where the true power lies. And "tolerate" doesn't necessarily mean voting for, it simply means returning to voting on a politician's stance on issues when neither candidate warrants punitive voting.
There is no need for a single issue, just a consensus as to how the politician ranks voters vs donors. And keep in mind we don't need agreement of 99%, just enough to remove a person from office. Hell, it might take nothing more than people stopping to vote loyally for their party. To just be perfectly willing to vote against their party's officials when those officials are obviously bought and paid for.
Whatever else voters wanted, they wanted first their team to win.
As opposed to wanting the team they are most philosophically opposed to to win, which would of course make so much more sense.
Wha??
This is true in states other than Texas too, from my experience.
People with clear libertarian ideas will often vote for a Republican, simply because he (or she?) makes some libertarian-esque comments while campaigning.
Libertarians tend to try to "sell" their political beliefs on the idea that "Democrats already agree with half of what we're saying, because we're liberal like them on all the social issues .... gay marriage rights, marijuana legalization, etc.", and "Republicans already agree with half of what we're saying, because we're conservative in our economic policies and support the growth of free market business operations."
In reality though? I've noticed that when it comes down to it, it's RARE that a Democrat will talk about alignment with libertarian concepts. The party still seems to believe that while the liberal outlook on social issues is important (especially to differentiate themselves from a Republican contender), they've got to cling tightly to the idea that selectively raising taxes is key to solving problems. As soon as you advocate increased taxes and/or adding government offices/departments to accomplish some new goal? You've totally lost the libertarian-minded voters.
Republicans are in a much better position to claim adherence to some of the core values or tenants of the party, while speaking to a desire for a more libertarian system. (EG. It's not hard to stay Republican and not lose much of your support-base if you decide that you won't, for example, push any legal changes to the status-quo on abortion law. Republicans may have a traditional "pro life" stance, but it's easy to say that's a "personal belief you hold" while abstaining from trying to modify law related to it.) Heck, Ronald Reagan made MANY libertarian comments during his presidency, and he's seen by many as a Republican hero.
I'm going to call B.S. on this idea that if you opt out of voting, you're somehow doing everyone in the nation a disservice.
One of this country's big problems, IMO, is that we tend to get so many ignorant people voting, who wind up voting for all the wrong reasons anyway. (I remember back when Clinton was running for office, talking to quite a few women who said they were going to vote for Bill *only* because they thought he was the better looking individual and they'd rather see his face on the TV for the next 4 years!)
As far as I'm concerned, these people could just stay home and not vote at all, and it really wouldn't hurt a thing. Let the decisions be made by the informed and educated who have legitimate reasons to cast a vote for one candidate over another.
Although I definitely voted this this last election, and selected a lot of "very slightly and questionably the lesser of 2 big evils" types ... I also had a couple of really good candidates I wanted badly to see voted in. I've passed on a couple other elections before though, when I truly felt I couldn't give any of the people running my "stamp of approval" by casting a vote in their direction. Sometimes, I think you can really say, "None of these people are even worth my free time or energy to go vote for them." (And in those cases, I say "Screw you!" to the idiots who spout off the cliches like "Then you get the government you deserve!" Because, NO ... I actually think I deserve far better than the piss-poor options I was asked to choose from. So I'm screwed no matter which one of them gets into office, and may as well let other people take the responsibility for helping one of those morons get into office."
1st of May (May Day) is also known as the Communist International Workers Day! Communism is a far Left belief and Socialism is not far removed in ideaology. So which party does this PAC support? Can you say the Democrats? Hmm...
Food for thought? NAZI = Nationalist Socialist Party in German. They were Socialist Fascists. Started with organized thugs (brown shirts) violent intimidation then when in power gun control and healthcare were just the beginning. The weak, mentally ill, elderly, disabled, violent criminals (defectives), etc. were euthanized for the benefit of the State but the people were told they were humanely put out of their misery and were better off. Those with guns were registered and rounded up as a result. Enemies disappeared.
Let's not forget what can happen if we let the "useful idiots" have their way. Evil is real. The Democrats have moved very far to the Left. It is no longer your fathers Party. Obama is a Socialist and he has shown Fascist tendencies. Wake up! JFK would not agree with today's Democrats!
They supported a number of Republican candidates. One of their two winning campaigns was for a Republican. In other words, they helped elect as many Republicans as Democrats.
Of course, it's rather disheartening to hear people always trying to put a political spin on these sorts of things. I don't vote for Democrats (or Republicans) and I still support MAYDAY PAC and WOLF PAC.
Chuuch. Preach. Tabernacle.
No, the term people and its derivitives has been ruled in court to include corporations. There is a huge difference in how you are attempting to use it.
The antithesis to your position is that a law which says no person can fraudulently advertise product for use they cannot fullfil would not bar corporations from doing so.
As in the headline "lowest voter turnout in 70 years"? As in, " Just 36.4 percent of eligible voters turned out in 2014" http:/// www.pbs.org/newshour/updates/2014-midterm-election-turnout-lowest-in-70-years/
This is a US national disgrace. You don't like who's running, so just go play video games, and let the oldigarchs get the best government money can buy.
If you didn't vote, shut up. Better, leave, and go somewhere that you can play games, and as long as you do that, the government won't bother you. Hmmm, isn't North Korea like that?
mark
most journalists* little more than Democratic party operatives
You do know that the largest most viewed news channel in the US is Fox right? And you know that by far the vast majority of talk radio is conservative, right?
You must be referring to journalists that research lengthy pieces, study material in depth, and write long articles for organizations like the New York Times or Rolling Stone I assume? The tiny tiny percent of the modern news industry....
I'll grant you that most modern culture (Hollywood, etc..) has a progressive/liberal predominance. But whose fault is that? Assuming we aren't entering conspiracy land here, why do you think Hollywood is "left"? How did it get that way, and why does it remain that way? I'd be curious to hear your opinion.