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.
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.
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.
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.
Unless it's upwards of $5.3M in value, the estate doesn't even need to file.
I think he'll be okay.
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.
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.
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.
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.