Awesome Stuff: One Last Chance To Join With Thousands Of Others To Help Limit The Influence Of Money In Politics
from the don't-let-cynicism-get-in-the-way dept
Okay, we've written about Larry Lessig's Mayday PAC a bunch of times already, including when it launched, when it hit its first target of $1 million (which was then matched by donors for another $1 million), and again when the second round launched with a goal of raising $5 million (again to be matched with another $5 million) by July 4th.Guess what? Today is July 4th, and the campaign ends today.
And you have a chance to help determine if it meets that $5 million goal or not. While there's been a big last minute push from a variety of places, as I write this, the campaign is still significantly short of its target goal. There is a very real chance that it won't reach the $5 million. And that would be unfortunate. So, today is basically a big chance for you to make a statement about trying to limit the impact of money in politics.
No one knows for sure if Lessig's plans will have any real impact, but I know of no one who has put as much time, thought and effort into tackling the problem of the corrupting influence of money in politics. For every simplistic point that someone has for why this plan or that plan won't work, Lessig has a detailed, fact-based or data-based answer. This isn't just some randomly idealistic person with a dream. This is someone who has dedicated a huge chunk of his life and intellectual resources towards really tackling the problem in a realistic and doable way. Even if I don't know all of the details, if there's one person who can actively make a difference, who has thought through the pros and cons of basically every possible approach, it's Larry Lessig.
Go ahead and be cynical, if you must. But think about what that cynicism leads to in the end. Even if the MAYDAY PAC fails, isn't it better that they have a chance to succeed, rather than killing it off from the start so you can sound smart about how you knew it wouldn't work?
Thank you for reading this Techdirt post. With so many things competing for everyone’s attention these days, we really appreciate you giving us your time. We work hard every day to put quality content out there for our community.
Techdirt is one of the few remaining truly independent media outlets. We do not have a giant corporation behind us, and we rely heavily on our community to support us, in an age when advertisers are increasingly uninterested in sponsoring small, independent sites — especially a site like ours that is unwilling to pull punches in its reporting and analysis.
While other websites have resorted to paywalls, registration requirements, and increasingly annoying/intrusive advertising, we have always kept Techdirt open and available to anyone. But in order to continue doing so, we need your support. We offer a variety of ways for our readers to support us, from direct donations to special subscriptions and cool merchandise — and every little bit helps. Thank you.
–The Techdirt Team
Filed Under: cynicism, larry lessig, mayday, mayday citizens pac, money in politics, politics, superpac
Reader Comments
Subscribe: RSS
View by: Time | Thread
Ending the influence of money? Might as well declare our country to be a country of fools led by an iron fist dictator, not that it already is one now.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re:
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re:
really? joe/jane sixpack are going to drain THEIR funds in THIS economy, and STILL not compete with the puppetmasters, who are using chump change they found in the couch of their 10th home ? ? ?
sure, that's fair: 'buy back/out-bid' the corrupters, AND pay THEM, AND STILL not get any traction...
say, i've got a great idea: why don't we take a critical service most people desperately need, and privatize it, make it mandatory, AND keep the major reason for high costs in effective control of the system, the services and the prices... ain't that a great idea too ?
sheeple, hoodwinked and they don't even realize it...
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re:
(Like sheep, we are social animals. We are actually far more imitative than sheep and even monkeys, contrary to the stereotype.) Setting that aside, who's more like mindless, docile sheep: people who have digested Lessig's analysis, agree with him, and support his initiative as the best thing going or the huge mass of apathetic people whining to anyone who will listen about our government but not doing anything about it?
p.s. The flawed health care reform is a great example of why we need to fix the way elections are funded, as Lessig has argued repeatedly: “Let’s say we are talking about healthcare: money guaranteed that single-payer health insurance was not on the table. There could be nothing more fundamental to that bill than that.” http://harvardmagazine.com/2012/07/a-radical-fix-for-the-republic
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re:
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re:
Do nothing is better than do something.
Got it.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re:
preface: OF COURSE, i am 100% for changing the CORRUPTED present system, however, i think it is beyond salvation at this point by working within 'The (corrupt) System'...
1. thanks for response, and so i *did* go and look at their 'manifesto', etc; and -in general- my points are STILL salient and valid... frankly, i saw NOTHING of substance which contradicts my original perception of this naive effort...
2. this is their pollyanna-ish vision of how this is going to work: step 1 elect 'good' kongresskritters... well, gosh, why didn't anyone think of that before, geez, do i feel stooopid; step 2 Win Majority of kongresskritters!, oh, its that simple, gosh, i feel even stooopider; step 3 make a law! damn, why didn't we idiot sheeple think of that!; step 4 change constitution to keep future evil minions of doom from changing back to bad old ways, brilliant ! ! !
easy peasy japanesy...
*snort*
? ? ? ALL OF THIS BEGS THE QUESTION: HOW are you going to elect 'reform-minded' kongresskritters when we can be out-bid at every turn ? ? ? *AS IF* 'we' have not been trying already ? ? ?
i'm sorry, i'm left shaking my head at this 'hey gang, let's put on a show!' bullshit... AS IF there already aren't a majority of kongresskritters who would agree that -yes- the system is broken, and -yes- it should be 'fixed'...
but it doesn't get fixed, does it ? ? ?
let' say you elect super-boy scouts who have 'pledged' (said 'pledge' meaning NOTHING, by the way) to pursue real election reform... what are they going to do, beat up the old kongresskritters who are holding up reform, blackmail them (prob the most effective method), hold their dog hostage ? ? ? WHAT ARE THEY GOING TO DO DIFFERENTLY that has not already been done ? ? ? WHAT SPECIFICALLY ? ? ?
no, this is nothing but a simpleton chamberlain heading out to be snookered by a couple hundred hitlers...
the 1% are simply going to fold their cards and let THEIR kongresskritters be bought out from under them ? ? ?
not to mention: using immoral methods to combat that SAME immorality ? ? ? no, you have lost your way if you go down that road...
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re:
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:
HOWEVER, i don't know how/if it could withstand a legal challenge: WHY isn't rich people's speech/money worthy of having matching funds too ?
(AND GIVEN the present perverted system, i don't know why not, either, AS A MATTER OF PRINCIPLE...)
i just hate:
using IMMORAL means to combat said immoral means, makes me feel icky, I AM (whether corporadoes do) supposed to have morals and ethical strictures, i will NOT abandon them for convenience...
i just don't see us 99% out-bidding the 1% who have the money, the power, the media, the law, the courts, the EVERYTHING amenable to THEIR demands, not ours...
sorry, i've given up on changing a corrupt system by using a corrupt system; nothing short of a constitutional convention (which could be hijacked by the 1%), or a revolution (bloody or totherwise) can stop this self-perpetuating, inhuman, and inhumane Empire...
outbidding the puppetmasters ? i just don't see it... someone run the numbers for me, but i bet it is literally impossible to out-bid them...
when a card sharp is cheating you, you don't try to out-cheat him, you take out your Colt and ventilate him...
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:
Sorry if I have already, quoted this here, but I am interested in your response in particular: "Some worry that there’s something improper about using a corrupted system to achieve corruption reform. Don’t we dirty our hands if we use the money of the few to achieve a democracy for the many?
"I understand that concern. I don’t agree with it. One might have said it was wrong to use the racist system of American democracy to bring about the rights of citizenship for African-Americans. I wouldn’t have said that. Or one might have said it was wrong to use a sexist political system to bring about a democracy in which women have the right to vote. I wouldn’t have said that either. In my view, we work with the democracy we have to make a more perfect democracy. And the only way we’ll convince America that winning is possible is if we show America we’ve got the resources to win."
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Term limits!
Because of this they will fail. This isn't cynicism this is a fact.
Their planned voucher system for funding campaigns will end up hopelessly tipped in favor of incumbents. With higher name recognition and by virtue of being the voters representatives, incumbents can set themselves up to receive the lions share of voucher money being proposed by Mayday.
In my belief our problems are much less caused by "money in politics" than they are caused by the corruption derived from having a near permanent running class that get into office and never leave. The bad that our representatives are doing in their establishing of laws and regulations far outweighs the bad they are doing in their political campaigns.
We need to throw the bums out, we need term limits to make sure that happens.
Call me a cynic all you like. But I'm just being a realist. They're trying to solve the wrong problem.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Term limits!
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Term limits!
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Term limits!
The government creates so anti-competitive laws (ie: via patents, govt established taxi-cab monopolies, etc...) and govt established monopolists and those that benefit from anti-competitive laws inherently rent seek. This is econ 101, they use their monopoly rents inefficiently to lobby and influence legislation to maintain and advance their monopoly position instead of using that money to lower prices and improve product quality.
Through a one sided penalty structure copy'right' holders deter restaurants and other venues from hosing independent performers without paying a parasite collection agency a fee and they can manipulate broadcasting and cableco monopolies to keep independent performers out so that the only way they can get their content distributed and gain recognition is to go through a parasite middle man that contributes nothing (forcing authors to sign over their copy protection privileges to that parasite). These companies and patent trolls like Intellectual Ventures use their ill gotten monopoly rents to rent seek and influence legislation instead of competing in a free market where such inefficient use of funds are unaffordable and will put you out of business. As someone else noted there are people whose career and skill set is to manipulate the legal system to rent seek and they don't have the skill set to make an honest living. It is monopoly rents that provide the financial basis for hiring people to dedicate their time and effort into manipulating the system. At the root of the problem these monopolies must be abolished. This is something taught in an introductory economics course about monopolies.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: Term limits!
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: Term limits!
Another thing you may have learned in a slightly more advanced economics course is that knowledge is something that the free market does not provide the right incentives for. If I put years into inventing something, someone else can steal my idea as soon as I make it public, leaving me with no compensation for my research. The temporary monopolies granted by patents and copyrights are a response to this problem with the free market. (Granted, there are abuses of patents and copyrights and there is a serious need for reform. Also, there are alternatives such as grants, prizes, and government- or foundation-funded fellowships for researchers. But we need to understand the basic economics, first.)
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: Term limits!
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Term limits!
First, it would be much cheaper as the government could hold out their 'business license disapproval if you don't cooperate and pay your tax of x number of minutes/column inches/exposures during campaign season' weapon.
Second would be to eliminate paid outside political advertising. I am not saying don't let corporations or PAC's speak, I am saying that their money is tainted speech. Let the candidates use the resources to speak. Let the forums and op ed columns speak for those big groups that are so used to having so much influence over something they have no real right to influence. After all, corporations really aren't people, are they?
Also, by the government paying for elections, moneyed dynasties will no longer have that advantage as any downtrodden soul could run, from a financial standpoint. If their platform and ability to state and stand by their position puts them in the limelight, the system succeeds. Of course, what ever system is set up would need to be as un-biased as possible which brings up...
Third is the need to eliminate the political parties. I am not demented enough (though there is some) to believe they will go away. I am talking about their influence as to candidate selection and other ways they currently intrude upon the democratic administration of a republic. They, as a whole, aren't people either.
There may be holes, there may be missing, but government pays takes outside money out of the system and out of our congresscritters zone of influence. It stops only that 'form of speech' created by and entrenched by the supreme court. A properly motivated congress could correct this.
You are trying money, big uphill road to hoe (the little guy does not understand the threat or cannot afford it), is there another or coincidental way?
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Term limits!
That's not a fact. That's your opinion of the possible outcome of a future event. Not even close to a fact. Jeez.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Term limits!
They are both problems. And it's undeniably true that violence is the proximate problem; it's what is directly hurting people. But the alcohol is the underlying problem, and without fixing that, nothing will really get fixed.
Similarly, term limits are a proximate problem, but money is the underlying problem. Action on term limits won't happen until there is a critical mass of politicians who are not motivated primarily by campaign funding.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Term limits!
US politics needs prohibition. You don't get it by starting another brewery.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re:
"I understand that concern. I don’t agree with it. One might have said it was wrong to use the racist system of American democracy to bring about the rights of citizenship for African-Americans. I wouldn’t have said that. Or one might have said it was wrong to use a sexist political system to bring about a democracy in which women have the right to vote. I wouldn’t have said that either. In my view, we work with the democracy we have to make a more perfect democracy. And the only way we’ll convince America that winning is possible is if we show America we’ve got the resources to win."
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re:
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
So that's why I think this Mayday PAC is downright idiotic since it's just splitting forces and the way they demand money runs counter to their stated goals.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Failure is the Option
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re:
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Won't work
If the problem is no one cares about politics, isn't the solution to make them care? If people understood the issues, snake oil salesmen would not be elected. The root of this campaign assumes people are idiots who are duped by advertisements. This is not exactly the most inspiring message. A better way to fight this is education. Show people that all those pork barrel projects are bankrupting government, and we'd all be better off with less government.
Which is back to my first point. Large government isn't fixed by larger government, only smaller government. In Canada, we have something like this: we give parties money based on how many people vote for them. It was meant to do exactly what this campaign wants: take the burden of parties to fundraise and just use taxpayer money to fund political campaigns. So what happens? The people in power now get even more money, in addition to their fund raising.
The solution is people need to wake up, and stop voting for people based on empty promises. There is no free lunch. If someone offers it to you, know that it was stolen from someone else.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Won't work
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Won't work
Your solution is based on the assumption that people are actually getting to vote for who they want. In the current system the only candidates on the ballot are the ones who have taken large donations from various people/entities that want legislative attention. The empty promises are simply the way they get you to vote for them. However, when they win, they give their paymasters what is expected. At least they do if they want to stay in the job.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
I gave
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: I gave
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: I gave
Politics costs money. Everything costs money in one way or another. To paraphrase one of my college professors: "politics is the method by which human beings decide who gets what." Since we use money as the primary determination for our economy (also "who gets what") that means politics is all about money, or at least economic value.
You can't remove money from politics. The money, however, isn't the problem. The problem is the strings attached to the money, the intent behind those who "donate" to the political process. This has a class-based definition: if the rich or affluent do it, it's called "lobbying" and if the poor or middle class do it it's called "bribery." The result is the same; the implication is that the individual receiving the money will behave in a manner that benefits the one giving the money, and if they do not, the money will not be offered. Since money is required to have a successful campaign (and thus get elected) this becomes a major factor in how politians act.
The idea behind a crowd funded PAC is that by making the money generic and outside of the control of any political goal or intent you remove the "or else" from the equation. This means politicians are compelled to act in accordance with what their constituents want because now their votes are the primary determining factor in how they represent us, not the money from campaign contributions (which currently have the largest impact on elections). In other words, our representatives are motivated to represent the voters rather than the lobby.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: I gave
You all have the choice of doing nothing or doing something. I choose something over nothing every time. I firmly believe this country is approaching a crossroad of epic proportion and I choose to help decide which direction we will be going. For far too long I have accepted what the powers that be have doled out while lining their pockets at my expense. In my opinion this country is an oligarchy.
Most of the money donated to MAYDAYPac will not be collected unless the goal is met or the donor chooses to donate anyway. If you are happy with the status quo, do nothing. If you are the status quo, troll the forums.
I, for one, have had enough surveillance, income equality, bad Supreme Court decisions, and secret courts making secret laws. I support Larry Lessing and you should too.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: I gave
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: I gave
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Techdirt is on the wrong side of this
The real answer to limit the reach of money in government is to limit what powers government has. We do not generally see people spending millions of dollars for a school board seat. But limiting state power, of course, is a political non-starter.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Techdirt is on the wrong side of this
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Techdirt is on the wrong side of this
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Techdirt is on the wrong side of this
I do not believe, and nothing you or anybody else has to say, will make me believe that the framers intended to give the CEO of some corporation two platforms to speak from, his personal soapbox AND his well funded campaign to perform some regulatory capture over at the legislature.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: Techdirt is on the wrong side of this
1) The Constitution says nothing about the nature of the speaker; it suppresses Congressional action. The First Amendment doesn't care whether the speaker is a Martian or a Montanan, or acts through a corporation to do so. Indeed, you are using multiple corporations to engage in speech here; complaining that speech via corporations needs to be regulated is to invite that same regulation upon yourself.
2) If Citizens United was wrongly decided, then so was New York Times vs. Sullivan, a point made eloquently by Floyd Abrams, who represented the Times in that case.
Pretending that Congress has not only a right but a responsibility to suppress speech (as Bernie Sanders most perniciously has) is a vile perversion of what the First Amendment stands for.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Techdirt is on the wrong side of this
So sez you.
The rest of us look at our bank accounts and wonder how any of us could compete with the hundreds of millions of dollars these guys are prepared to spend while speaking for a very very very small percentage of the whole, who, because money, can speak loudly enough to overpower everybody else. Sorry, does not work, as this is not properly balanced, soapboxes should be equal.
Maybe if you scream your mantra "Citizens United was correctly decided" enough times you might get another few thousand to believe you, but those folks will either be already part of the problem or so naive that they have already invested in both the Brooklyn Bridge AND the Eiffel Tower, and are looking for the return.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Techdirt is on the wrong side of this
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Techdirt is on the wrong side of this
Well maybe two thoughts. The constitution recognizes people and citizens, and it recognizes voters. Where does it differentiate between them? Why do people/citizens have problems with registering to vote? The answer is the entrenched. You sound like an entrenched kind of person. How do you go about restricting, or allowing the restriction of voters to vote? We all know it comes from the parties, cause they currently have the power, and you seem like your in lock step with one of them (so hard to tell them apart these days).
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Techdirt is on the wrong side of this
you don't need to go any further than that to demolish your 'argument'...
not to mention, back in the day when our forefathers were contemplating these 'rights', corporations were tightly leashed, relatively rarely granted charters to perform some specific task THAT HAD TO BENEFIT THE PUBLIC AT LARGE, NOT just generate profit for private parties...
if you haven't noticed, THAT situation has been TURNED ON ITS HEAD, and it is the corporate-tail that is wagging the dog-state: IT IS TOTALLY PERVERTED...
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Techdirt is on the wrong side of this
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Techdirt is on the wrong side of this
The thing is, the government is being hypocritical.
I got my property tax bill a couple weeks ago, and e-mailed my County Treasurer asking his phone number and how many chapters of A Tale of Two Cities I'd have to read to him to consider my taxes paid in full. He said I couldn't do that.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Techdirt is on the wrong side of this
Do you seriously think that anyone in the current "system" has any incentive to put such limits in place? I certainly don't. If you really want to make such a change, you need to be heard. The way campaigns are funded today, your vote and your voice don't mean much. Lessig wants to change that.
You're wrong, Techdirt is on the right side of this. If you really want what you're asking for, you should be supporting Mayday.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Ask me your questions
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
The U.S. Supreme Court? We need to end these lifetime terms of service because it's gotten ridiculous. Additionally, we need to abolish the Electoral College. The president should be elected in the General Election vote, NOT the Electoral College.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re:
"I don't really see term limits as a solution. If anything, that could make the revolving door problem even worse. People will enter Congress not thinking "I will be working for this institution in thirty years", instead, they will enter thinking "Who will I work for when I'm done working for Congress and how can I do them favors while in Congress". and you would have a lot more people who have worked for Congress (which is harder to publicly track), a Congress that regulates many industries, what, are you going to force all these people to never work for any industry?"
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re:
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re:
Whatever you think the problem is, Lessig's whole point is that it doesn't matter, because you have no voice in the current funding climate. You won't get the change you want, whatever it is, until your voice can be herd, and big donations get the legislative attention. Period.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Congress does favor for big business and corporate interests and they in turn get high profile jobs working for those self same industries.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re:
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re:
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Forgive my ignorance, but I'm assuming this to mean 'limit how long people are in power'.
I don't see how that, in itself, helps. In addition to lessening peoples devotion to congress in favor of 'Okay, what do I do when my term is up?', its always bothered me that the political system seems designed to ensure nothing gets done.
Person (a) is in office 4 years (random example, bear with me). In 4 years, they try to put in motion a plan to solve problem (a). But, their term is up before the plan is finished, and person (b), who replaces them, doesn't care about problem (a). No their pet issue is problem (b). So they scrap the in progress plan to solve problem (a), wasting 4 years of work and who knows how much money, so they can start their work on problem (b). But ending the plan to solve problem (a) takes time and money to. Person (b)'s term ends, and person (c) comes in. Starting to see where this is going?
It honestly amazes me anything ever gets done in politics when all anybody seems to have time to do is short sighted plans that they HOPE the next guy isn't just gonna drop of change track on...
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re:
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re:
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
I've given twice
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
For those naysayers...
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Down to $250K
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
If we fail
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: If we fail
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Time zones
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
I think we all recognize that our government is not functioning the way we would like it to. To those of you that want a national popular vote, great! Do you work with the national popular vote movement? To those that want to do away with career politicians, are you working with US Term Limits or a related group? To those that think the WolfPAC is the way to go, if you're not yet involved, the WolfPAC guys I've met love Larry and what he's doing, but they definitely want all the help they can get.
To all the cynics and realists with the clarity of mind to know what the wrong approach is, I hope you're actively working to implement the correct solution(s) we so desperately need. Let us know what you're doing and how we can get involved.
Thanks.
P.S. - for those that haven't given yet, this is my favorite MayDay PAC pledge page: https://my.mayday.us/t/a51c-Daniel-Miller/
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
USA is so great that it fails as a Republic and a Democracy
At the least, you are a nation of cowards, so interested in your own individual "rights" and desires that you (in the majority) are unable to see a bigger picture. Your national influence in relation to freedom and protection of those who are unable to protect themselves has been on the decline for decades. You are a people that are seen to be lazy, corrupt, hedonistic and lacking any spiritual well-being. You are seen as a people that say one thing and yet do the opposite.
You have allowed those who rule you to get away with "murder" and not be responsible for the actions they dictate. Your apparent arrogance in all things American gets right up the nose of those whom you would influence.
And why is this the case? Because, you are people and people everywhere are flawed, stupid, arrogant, self-seeking, wanting pleasure and their own way first. My own nation is no better.
Occasionally, someone tries to fix something. But these fixes don't go to the core of the problem, people. It requires a fundamental change in people. This is recognised and their are those who would try and force their proposals on people. This, however, won't work and for the simple reason, that it is people who want to force the changes. As we have seen throughout history, this is futile and doomed to failure.
There is a solution, but it cannot be forced on people. There is a way out but you cannot make people follow it. It requires a willingness to see oneself as one really is and people baulk at this. It also requires recognition that one cannot do this alone, we don't have the wisdom, the wherewithal or the power to do this. This too is where people will baulk at this.
It requires patience, kindness, not being proud, not getting angry, nor being jealous, nor boasting, nor self-centred and it requires recognising that we cannot sustain such. As a disciple of Jesus Christ, I have had to recognise that in and of myself, I am no different to anyone else on this planet, a self-serving, ignorant, arrogant, frail, power-hungry lover of oneself. Yet in him, he raises me above that if I remain focussed on him, seeking him first above all else. Do I have everything I want? No. Do I face difficulties and problems? Yes. Is it worth it? Very much so. When I look at my life, I have been able to bring (it has been brought through my life) some good into the lives of others. I don't have great influence nor great wealth, power or position.
I can share what I have learned. I cannot force it down anyone's throat as that is an exercise in futility and in reality, each of us is responsible for our own choices. The one actual right we each have is to choose. Funnily enough the one right that people want to take away from others. All of our choices bring consequences, some good, some bad. As individuals we are then responsible.
The godless say that evil in the world shows that there is no God. Yet they forget that evil is there because people have chosen that evil. They have made choices and have allowed it to rise up. They abrogate their own responsibilities in the matter. There is a verb in the Australia vernacular called "aorta". This verb is commonly used to push the responsibility on to others, instead of facing that it is a consequence of their decisions and choices.
So will Mr. Lessig's call for action work? Probably not and simply because most people don't really care to change the things that are fundamentally wrong.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: USA is so great that it fails as a Republic and a Democracy
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Limit the influence of money
Yup, Techdirt has lost the plot.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Limit the influence of money
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Limit the influence of money
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
If it's hypocritical, it's a good hypocrisy
If you were designing a new computer, would it be hypocritical to use existing computers to do the job?
Was it hypocritical for the designers of the first hybrid car to drive gas-powered cars to work every day?
"Money in politics" is not the full definition of the problem. It's where the money is coming from, and what those donors expect in return. And the MayDay PAC can only improve matters. That's why I gave twice.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Donated because of the shills
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Donated because of the shills
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Donated because of the shills
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Donated because of the shills
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Money has no effect
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Money has no effect
Now, remember I'm a corporation, and I have a lot of money. So I divide it up among several likely winners. To hedge my bet, I also fund both sides of some close elections. I don't really care who wins, I just want my law passed (and notice that I don't care if the winner is a Republican or a Democrat or a Green -- I just care that I've given enough money that the candidate will feel obligated to fight for my law). Because I've given so much money to several different winners, I have effectively bought support for my law -- maybe bi-partisan support!
In this scenario, votes don't seem to matter any more. And it sure looks like money is a problem because of the large amounts that single corporations can donate to PACs.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Money has no effect
Then either you didn't watch Lessig's video(s), or you didn't listen. The point is that the only people on your ballot -- your only choices -- are being pre-screened by people contributing gobs of money in return for legislative attention. Your vote doesn't really matter, except perhaps to choose the red candidate or the blue candidate.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Almost there
https://mayday.us/
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Almost there
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Almost there
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
WOW. Just WOW.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
AWESOME
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Nothing ventured...
I'll risk it.
I gave, and I'm going to allow myself to be happy that we reached $5 million. Good job, folks. Now on to the rest of the work.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
It's like actually believing that magic can be conjured by muttering words from a movie. I just love the delusion that people think that limiting influence of money in politics will actually work.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re:
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re:
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Populism.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Populism.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Democrats AND Republicans have always fought hard for earmarks, or pork barrel spending, and it looks like Democrats, under the leadership of Harry Reid, wants to bring back earmarks.
The thing is, our own elected official not only borrow money from China because they seem to think that it's okay to spend more money than the government is generating in revenue but that they are also using our own tax dollars to influence their own politics.
Every moron knows that you start from the top and work your way down. Want to end that influence? Start with President Obama, continue with the U.S. Supreme Court, make your way to congress, then to state government and finally to city government.
THAT'S how you end the influence of money in politics. Campaign donors aren't even the problem. It's the morons who were elected to run our country who have literally screwed everything up and they fight tooth and nail to prevent anyone from changing the status quo.
Even Elizabeth Warren is a moron. She talks a good talk, but in the end, she cannot do shit because the same changes she wants to make would literally screw herself, not to mention the Democratic Party.
Democrats and Republicans are strung out because they cannot commit to any meaningful reform without cutting off their own legs in the process.
Everything has a consequence. Unfortunately, Democrats have developed tunnel vision and they are only fixated on big money and they are NOT looking at the larger picture.
Take a look at that Nuclear Option Harry Reid enabled. Sure, it ended filibusters of judicial nominees and cabinet appointments but it's going to backfire when the Republicans regain control of the Senate in November.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Pay no attention to the man behind the curtain
The entire outrage about campaign contributions is premised on the claim that political money equals votes. There are only two ways that can work: direct bribery, which undoubtedly happens but is a relatively minor influence, and using money to purchase publicity. Therefore, the crucial implicit claim is that political publicity directly manipulates the electorate's votes.
Now I happen to agree wholeheartedly with that claim; I believe that most of the incumbent's advantage is a matter of the mere-exposure effect. However, an honest adherent to that claim has to acknowledge that the issue is not money per se but political publicity.
If that's the case, then the proposed "reforms" boil down to carving out a privileged position for incumbent media companies. CBS and the New York Times will still have massively wide-reaching platforms from which to push their political goals, but companies and individuals whose business happens not to be the mass media will be blocked from straightforward access to modern soapboxes.
Support Mayday if you like, but be honest about what you want: the government's picking who's allowed to reach an audience with political messages.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Pay no attention to the man behind the curtain
You might want to back up this statement with some logic. It certainly doesn't follow from your previous paragraphs.
Lessig has thought about this, written about it, spoken about it. He's put his idea out there, and put his credibility behind it. Where's your idea and what have you done about it?
Feel free to enlighten us with your solution and see if you can get a movement going. Otherwise, you're just another armchair cynic.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Pay no attention to the man behind the curtain
And my conclusion follows if you expect "freedom of the press" to be maintained as some sort of principle at all. Unless you're going to forbid the NYT from printing editorials--and deal with situations where the media aren't interested in covering newsworthy stories at all--then you're placing Real Journalists in a privileged position to distribute their political opinions while denying others the right to use their means to do the same.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Pay no attention to the man behind the curtain
I don't think "begging the question" means what you think it means. What I did do was assume you had a better idea, instead of assuming you accept the way things are.
Some of us, however, don't accept that congress members should spend 30-70% of their time collecting campaign donations, and then listen to those donors instead of the people they represent. I think the Framers would find your "compromise" unsatisfying too.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
First call bribes bribes and make them taxable.
Second term limits so that a Congressional office is not worth millions in bribes!
Citizens United was needed to offset the influence of labor unions and their "voluntary" contributions—which are any thing but voluntary. Often these are withheld from your pay along with Union dues, second if they aren't you are strong armed into making them, and sometimes even if they are part of the Union pay deductions.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Lessig's motive for wanting to limit the influence of money politics is an unattainable goal. But, instead of reaching for something that was within grasp, he decided to shoot for the moon with what amounts to nothing more than a pea-shooter.
Not only that, but his goal has no real hope of affecting change. The first goal is to repeal The Patriot Act and to limit the powers of the NSA within the borders of the United States. Americans should not be subjected with continual spying by our government and President Obama should be signing executive order after executive order either banning or restricting their powers against identified Americans.
The second goal is to disband the TSA. These guys and gals are the second worst abuser of civil rights in this country. What makes it worse, is the TSA violates the civil rights of every American. They don't just target Muslims or blacks, they target everyone. If you videotape or videorecord what they're doing, you're labeled a troublemaker and blackballed from flying on any sort of domestic commercial airline.
Third, disband the FISA courts. Again, the FISA court is not a court when it continues to rubber-stamp subpoenas and secret search warrants without allowing opposing counsel to argue against the government. They violate due process and wreak of Nazism, fascism and are anathema to public policy.
There is no such as a free society anymore because the U.S. Government screams "terrorism" or "national security" and the courts jump to the defense of the government.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Response to: kenichi tanaka on Jul 5th, 2014 @ 11:29am
So eliminating the root causes will allow us to deal with them better...
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re:
"Not only that, but his goal has no real hope of affecting change."
Glad you're able to tell the future. Lessig and those that support him are doing something. You're doing what, exactly?
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Raise money to end money in politics
If the campaign raised money to educate... that would a fine idea. But I doubt that the plan is to be non-coercive.
Since it is described as a PAC , I presume ( and I could be wrong ) that the money will be used to influence big time politicians. Sort of a bidding war to control the biggest a**holes. Pour more money into the slavelord* system and you get more of the same. More wheeler-dealers. More messianic lying manipulators. More buyoffs. More influence peddling. The bigger the system gets... the worse it is likely to get.
Remember the First Commandment ( and only commandment )...
== Leave thy neighbor alone ==
* that is what the politico/industrial/crapitalism/military/welfare is ..... people bossing other people around.
#LTNA
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re:
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
THAT is the only way to prevent the the influence of money.
Every time a single citizen donates to an election or re-election campaign, YOU are influencing politics through your donation. YOU contribute to a politician engaging in a smear or dirty campaign against a member of their same party or against a member of the opposing party.
It just doesn't matter whether you donate $1 or $10,000, YOU are influencing politics through your donation.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re:
Right. And your next comment below isn't an insulting childish rant either. Troll.
"[...] you need to ban all money in politics [...]"
Oh, poof! TK says "ban all money" and it shall be!
Laws need to be passed for such a thing. Conventionally, legislators pass laws in this country. Legislators benefit from the current scheme. Figure it out from there. I'm not going to hold your hand all the way through this.
"It just doesn't matter whether you donate $1 or $10,000, YOU are influencing politics through your donation."
I don't think Larry ever said that it didn't, so stop jumping up and down stomping your feet. It's stunning how insufferable you are on this thread. How about spending some significant time actually reading and watching what Larry has written and spoken? He wrote a book, you know. It's quite good, easy to read. It's free if you look for it.
Relevant to your latest tantrum, the point is to change election funding so that most of the money comes from the 99.95% of us instead of the .05% that it currently does, reducing the influence of large donors who expect something in return.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
You don't fucking try to end the influence of money by using you own money to influence politics.
Larry must have forgotten the old rule that two wrongs don't make a right.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re:
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Not old enough to vote, 16-year-old builds money-in-politics plug-in
http://www.washingtonpost.com/blogs/in-the-loop/wp/2014/07/03/not-old-enough-to-vote-16-year-old -builds-money-in-politics-plug-in/
[ link to this | view in chronology ]