Citizens United was a case where the Supreme Court found that the last "campaign finance reform" law over-reached and violated the Constitution.
And you would disagree if I said that Citizens United brought that case against the FEC because Citizens United wanted to reform the campaign finance rules?
Wolf-PAC has a petition on their site, plus this page with information about volunteering or donating. Volunteering would include actually meeting with local legislators to pitch the case for a convention and try and get a local resolution passed supporting it, so that eventually the state would approve its application for the convention.
The Convention Of States project is also actively seeking a convention. At least 3 states so far have approved their applications.
Keep in mind that Lessig also thought Obama was "The Answer", and fought hard for his election.
To be fair, a lot of people did. I voted for him the first time because he claimed that he was going to repeal the Patriot Act and close Guantanamo Bay. He did neither of those, so I didn't vote for him again, and a lot of people felt the same way. Obama had around 5 million more votes in 2008 than he did in 2012.
Yeah, I made a blanket statement that isn't true 100% of the time. It sounds like Cantor's base didn't think he was representing them anymore. I'd love to see the results of that election happen nationwide, frankly I'd love to see every single incumbent lose.
Laws are not set in stone, not even the constitution. If a law gets passed that is ineffective or harmful, it can be repealed. I would rather have decades of non-politician legislators making our laws than another 4 years of the current assholes getting paid by anyone with money to screw over everyone else. It needs to end.
"Campaign finance reform" in the past included things like Citizens United, which directly contributes to the problems we have now. The current brand of reform is aimed at getting rid of things like that. We are trying to correct the problems that were made in the past.
And I don't know if it will work, but I want to try. One thing that I am not willing to do is to sit here and do nothing, expecting that other people are going to fix the problem.
Ideally financial reform would also affect the ability of lobbyists to influence politicians. They could get a job wherever they want, but they wouldn't be able to buy politicians.
There are a lot of changes we need. Changes to campaign financing, lobbying, and term limits are all necessary. Changes to some of those areas might not be very effective without changes to the others.
That's right, Mayday's goal is to fund and elect politicians committed to campaign finance reform. The way our political system is set up is that the politicians with the most money get elected, so if we are going to change anything, including campaign finance laws, we need to buy the politicians to do it (or pass a constitutional amendment via an Article V convention).
I wanted to add something about the solution through local politics. That is an important step. We the people have the right and ability to change the federal government through constitutional amendments. We can restrict Congress ourselves by using an Article V convention of the states. We can ratify an amendment starting at the state level in order to effect the kind of change that Congress would not make on their own. Instead of counting on Congress to limit their own power, we can do it for them.
I have news for you, the corrupting influence of money will remain AS LONG AS POLITICIANS HAVE POWER.
That is true, that's why campaign finance reform is not a magic bullet. Another necessary change is term limits for all of Congress, so that we can replace career politicians with civilian public servants, as it was meant to be. Legislators and representatives should come out of the private sector to serve their term, and then leave and return to the private sector. We don't need people like Mitch McConnell spending their entire career in politics while they amass a personal fortune of tens of millions of dollars.
Thanks for supporting Mayday, there isn't a whole lot of time left but it looks like around $300,000 more has been contributed since yesterday. I hope the momentum can continue.
Because ordinary people have so much say today in elections, don't we?
Here is the reality: 196 people contributed 80% of super PAC contributions in the 2012 election cycle. Your grass-roots efforts are pretty meaningless when they can only raise a quarter of the financial influence of 196 people. The goal of campaign finance reform is to level that playing field, so that the opinions of ordinary people are weighted more against the opinions of the super wealthy. Sheldon Adelson does not deserve to have a larger say in who gets elected than I do, it doesn't matter how much money he has.
"I'm against very wealthy people attempting to or influencing elections... But as long as it's doable I'm going to do it."
Here's the thing though: a lot of people want a lot of changes to happen. Everyone doesn't agree on all of the changes, sure, but a lot of people want to see fundamental changes to our political system, starting with removing the corrupting influence of money. A lot of people want to support something moving in that direction, but what are our options right now? Really, who would you support in order to effect the kind of change that you want to see in politics? What Lessig did was step up and lead. He might not be the leader that everyone wants, but he's actually stepped up to lead an effort. There are a lot of people who want to get behind change in politics, but very few people leading the way. Mayday is a high-profile example with the goal of leading the effort to reform our political system. You don't need to agree 100% with what they say, but if you want to see change then this is a good way to hopefully get that process started. Other groups include things like WOLF-PAC, although it is much less visible. And if you don't like anything out there now, then start your own group and get the word out. Anything to create the kinds of changes that all of us need in order to have our political system work for us instead of the other way around.
I sure am. No one is going to get arrested for thinking that humans don't cause climate change. But if someone is launching a campaign to spread that idea, even though they know that the contrary is true, and they are trying to deceive the public in order to enrich themselves (like tobacco companies), then they do deserve to be charged with a crime and ordered to reimburse their victims. But no one cares if someone just doesn't believe that people can cause climate change.
The greater the share of research, that is funded by the governments
I'm not necessarily advocating that governments should fund and engage in research, just that they should seek out the consensus of the private scientific community when deciding matters of policy. There might not be a consensus on the issues they're deciding, but seeking out that consensus would be much better than what we have now, where they seek out the people with the largest checkbook and then decide policy based on what that person wants.
When I said wealthy governments I was referring to governments of wealthy nations. And I do believe that governments have a duty to provide essential infrastructure to their people. I consider education and healthcare to be essential infrastructure in an advanced civilization.
Do we really need to go again, through the fine examples of what that venerable "vast majority of the scientific community" once considered incorrect — but does not any more?
We can if you want, that's one of my favorite things about science actually - new evidence comes along, and suddenly the universe is not the same as it once was. Changing ideas is a central concept of the scientific method, that's the beauty of it. I wish I could say the same thing for politicians or religions, with politics people like to talk about how little their positions change, and the entire point of many religions is that every law is sacred and unchangeable.
But whether a particular thing is, indeed, unscientific, remains a matter of opinion. Though we seem to have the opinion in this case, do you and I feel confident enough to force our opinion on other people's children? I do not...
It really is about having enough confidence, so the question becomes what is the acceptable level of confidence. Should the scientific community have a consensus of 60% to teach something as fact? 75%? 90%? 95%? 99%? I don't know what the answer to that is, but I imagine that scientific consensus concerning creationism is pretty high.
Which all boils down to the fact, that taxes should not be spent on education
That's something I don't agree with. On that quiz I score high as a libertarian, but I believe that wealthy governments have a duty to provide education and healthcare for everyone who wants it. I consider healthcare and education in the same bucket as roads and firemen when it comes to things that a wealthy government should provide. Not that the US is necessarily doing either of those correctly, but that's what I believe.
In general I agree, but when it comes to science I'm a little more relaxed about that, assuming that they stick to actual science without politicizing it. If they adhere to generally accepted scientific knowledge, and they design in a way to change the regulations as scientific consensus changes, then I like the idea. If they try to set anything in stone then I wouldn't be a fan, one of the best things about science is that our understanding can and does change all the time. When Einstein showed evidence that general relativity was correct, scientists around the world looked at Newton and his 200 year old ideas and had to acknowledge that he was not entirely correct. That must have been very humbling for a lot of people, including Einstein, but I love the fact that scientific theories can get torn down with little ceremony when someone discovers something new. One of the things that I dislike most about politics is that people are lauded for their unchanging attitudes, "sticking to their guns" or whatever, and derided for changing their mind, or "flip-flopping". It's ridiculous. So I'd like to see government take science a little more seriously, and politicians should feel free to change their views without fear of being ridiculed for it. The US especially needs that shift in attitude. Human-caused climate change is a great example, more and more data is coming out but people refuse to publicly acknowledge it or else get labeled in a negative way.
Also, I consulted every site on the Internet and a consortium of literature professors, and they told me you don't know what "hyperbole" means. You may have been looking for "satire".
The funny thing about that is that I looked up the definition of hyperbole less than 30 minutes before I wrote that because I didn't want to use it incorrectly somewhere else. Maybe it was just on my mind. I'm pretty sure that's irony.
Now a way must be found to prevent parents from poisoning the young minds with things the vast majority of the scientific community considers incorrect.
That's better, just a minor correction.
There's no reason to outlaw parents from teaching their children mythology as if it were commonly accepted fact, just like they did not outlaw schools from doing so. The school would just lose its government funding. I'm not sure if there would be a similar kind of incentive to get parents to also refrain from spouting mythology and legend as though it were fact, but if so it would certainly help promote the raising of a generation of free thinkers. Requiring schools to stick to actual facts is a decent start though, hopefully it spreads.
Slashdot Mirror
Citizens United was a case where the Supreme Court found that the last "campaign finance reform" law over-reached and violated the Constitution.
And you would disagree if I said that Citizens United brought that case against the FEC because Citizens United wanted to reform the campaign finance rules?
Wolf-PAC has a petition on their site, plus this page with information about volunteering or donating. Volunteering would include actually meeting with local legislators to pitch the case for a convention and try and get a local resolution passed supporting it, so that eventually the state would approve its application for the convention.
The Convention Of States project is also actively seeking a convention. At least 3 states so far have approved their applications.
Keep in mind that Lessig also thought Obama was "The Answer", and fought hard for his election.
To be fair, a lot of people did. I voted for him the first time because he claimed that he was going to repeal the Patriot Act and close Guantanamo Bay. He did neither of those, so I didn't vote for him again, and a lot of people felt the same way. Obama had around 5 million more votes in 2008 than he did in 2012.
Indeed. Several states have already approved their applications for a convention. We need 34 states to approve them and start the convention.
Do you really want the government deciding what movies we're allowed to see?
That would not be constitutional, I'm not worried about that.
How come it's okay for Miramax and Viacom to pollute politics with their corrupting corporate money?
It's not.
Yeah, I made a blanket statement that isn't true 100% of the time. It sounds like Cantor's base didn't think he was representing them anymore. I'd love to see the results of that election happen nationwide, frankly I'd love to see every single incumbent lose.
Laws are not set in stone, not even the constitution. If a law gets passed that is ineffective or harmful, it can be repealed. I would rather have decades of non-politician legislators making our laws than another 4 years of the current assholes getting paid by anyone with money to screw over everyone else. It needs to end.
"Campaign finance reform" in the past included things like Citizens United, which directly contributes to the problems we have now. The current brand of reform is aimed at getting rid of things like that. We are trying to correct the problems that were made in the past.
And I don't know if it will work, but I want to try. One thing that I am not willing to do is to sit here and do nothing, expecting that other people are going to fix the problem.
Ideally financial reform would also affect the ability of lobbyists to influence politicians. They could get a job wherever they want, but they wouldn't be able to buy politicians.
There are a lot of changes we need. Changes to campaign financing, lobbying, and term limits are all necessary. Changes to some of those areas might not be very effective without changes to the others.
That's right, Mayday's goal is to fund and elect politicians committed to campaign finance reform. The way our political system is set up is that the politicians with the most money get elected, so if we are going to change anything, including campaign finance laws, we need to buy the politicians to do it (or pass a constitutional amendment via an Article V convention).
I wanted to add something about the solution through local politics. That is an important step. We the people have the right and ability to change the federal government through constitutional amendments. We can restrict Congress ourselves by using an Article V convention of the states. We can ratify an amendment starting at the state level in order to effect the kind of change that Congress would not make on their own. Instead of counting on Congress to limit their own power, we can do it for them.
I have news for you, the corrupting influence of money will remain AS LONG AS POLITICIANS HAVE POWER.
That is true, that's why campaign finance reform is not a magic bullet. Another necessary change is term limits for all of Congress, so that we can replace career politicians with civilian public servants, as it was meant to be. Legislators and representatives should come out of the private sector to serve their term, and then leave and return to the private sector. We don't need people like Mitch McConnell spending their entire career in politics while they amass a personal fortune of tens of millions of dollars.
Thanks for supporting Mayday, there isn't a whole lot of time left but it looks like around $300,000 more has been contributed since yesterday. I hope the momentum can continue.
Because ordinary people have so much say today in elections, don't we?
Here is the reality: 196 people contributed 80% of super PAC contributions in the 2012 election cycle. Your grass-roots efforts are pretty meaningless when they can only raise a quarter of the financial influence of 196 people. The goal of campaign finance reform is to level that playing field, so that the opinions of ordinary people are weighted more against the opinions of the super wealthy. Sheldon Adelson does not deserve to have a larger say in who gets elected than I do, it doesn't matter how much money he has.
"I'm against very wealthy people attempting to or influencing elections... But as long as it's doable I'm going to do it."
Supporting a candidate who will not get elected anyway will not advance their objective.
Here's the thing though: a lot of people want a lot of changes to happen. Everyone doesn't agree on all of the changes, sure, but a lot of people want to see fundamental changes to our political system, starting with removing the corrupting influence of money. A lot of people want to support something moving in that direction, but what are our options right now? Really, who would you support in order to effect the kind of change that you want to see in politics? What Lessig did was step up and lead. He might not be the leader that everyone wants, but he's actually stepped up to lead an effort. There are a lot of people who want to get behind change in politics, but very few people leading the way. Mayday is a high-profile example with the goal of leading the effort to reform our political system. You don't need to agree 100% with what they say, but if you want to see change then this is a good way to hopefully get that process started. Other groups include things like WOLF-PAC, although it is much less visible. And if you don't like anything out there now, then start your own group and get the word out. Anything to create the kinds of changes that all of us need in order to have our political system work for us instead of the other way around.
What size of an area should you have the right to block all signals? Why should you not have the right to block all signals in a larger area?
Still feeling relaxed?
I sure am. No one is going to get arrested for thinking that humans don't cause climate change. But if someone is launching a campaign to spread that idea, even though they know that the contrary is true, and they are trying to deceive the public in order to enrich themselves (like tobacco companies), then they do deserve to be charged with a crime and ordered to reimburse their victims. But no one cares if someone just doesn't believe that people can cause climate change.
The greater the share of research, that is funded by the governments
I'm not necessarily advocating that governments should fund and engage in research, just that they should seek out the consensus of the private scientific community when deciding matters of policy. There might not be a consensus on the issues they're deciding, but seeking out that consensus would be much better than what we have now, where they seek out the people with the largest checkbook and then decide policy based on what that person wants.
When I said wealthy governments I was referring to governments of wealthy nations. And I do believe that governments have a duty to provide essential infrastructure to their people. I consider education and healthcare to be essential infrastructure in an advanced civilization.
Do we really need to go again, through the fine examples of what that venerable "vast majority of the scientific community" once considered incorrect — but does not any more?
We can if you want, that's one of my favorite things about science actually - new evidence comes along, and suddenly the universe is not the same as it once was. Changing ideas is a central concept of the scientific method, that's the beauty of it. I wish I could say the same thing for politicians or religions, with politics people like to talk about how little their positions change, and the entire point of many religions is that every law is sacred and unchangeable.
But whether a particular thing is, indeed, unscientific, remains a matter of opinion. Though we seem to have the opinion in this case, do you and I feel confident enough to force our opinion on other people's children? I do not...
It really is about having enough confidence, so the question becomes what is the acceptable level of confidence. Should the scientific community have a consensus of 60% to teach something as fact? 75%? 90%? 95%? 99%? I don't know what the answer to that is, but I imagine that scientific consensus concerning creationism is pretty high.
Which all boils down to the fact, that taxes should not be spent on education
That's something I don't agree with. On that quiz I score high as a libertarian, but I believe that wealthy governments have a duty to provide education and healthcare for everyone who wants it. I consider healthcare and education in the same bucket as roads and firemen when it comes to things that a wealthy government should provide. Not that the US is necessarily doing either of those correctly, but that's what I believe.
In general I agree, but when it comes to science I'm a little more relaxed about that, assuming that they stick to actual science without politicizing it. If they adhere to generally accepted scientific knowledge, and they design in a way to change the regulations as scientific consensus changes, then I like the idea. If they try to set anything in stone then I wouldn't be a fan, one of the best things about science is that our understanding can and does change all the time. When Einstein showed evidence that general relativity was correct, scientists around the world looked at Newton and his 200 year old ideas and had to acknowledge that he was not entirely correct. That must have been very humbling for a lot of people, including Einstein, but I love the fact that scientific theories can get torn down with little ceremony when someone discovers something new. One of the things that I dislike most about politics is that people are lauded for their unchanging attitudes, "sticking to their guns" or whatever, and derided for changing their mind, or "flip-flopping". It's ridiculous. So I'd like to see government take science a little more seriously, and politicians should feel free to change their views without fear of being ridiculed for it. The US especially needs that shift in attitude. Human-caused climate change is a great example, more and more data is coming out but people refuse to publicly acknowledge it or else get labeled in a negative way.
Also, I consulted every site on the Internet and a consortium of literature professors, and they told me you don't know what "hyperbole" means. You may have been looking for "satire".
The funny thing about that is that I looked up the definition of hyperbole less than 30 minutes before I wrote that because I didn't want to use it incorrectly somewhere else. Maybe it was just on my mind. I'm pretty sure that's irony.
I know he's kidding, he was using hyperbole to suggest that this is government overreach. I don't think it is.
Does advanced western intelligence include the ability to detect sarcasm?
Now a way must be found to prevent parents from poisoning the young minds with things the vast majority of the scientific community considers incorrect.
That's better, just a minor correction.
There's no reason to outlaw parents from teaching their children mythology as if it were commonly accepted fact, just like they did not outlaw schools from doing so. The school would just lose its government funding. I'm not sure if there would be a similar kind of incentive to get parents to also refrain from spouting mythology and legend as though it were fact, but if so it would certainly help promote the raising of a generation of free thinkers. Requiring schools to stick to actual facts is a decent start though, hopefully it spreads.