Live data from Hacker News

MayDay PAC

avc.com

31–40 of 96 posts

Re: MayDay PAC

#31
post #14

The key thing that I don't think enough people understand is that this campaign finance reform that Lessig is working on is an issue for anyone who has ANY cause. Whether your cause is is climate change, net neutrality, or anything else, meaningful change with that issue is largely blocked by THIS issue (money in politics). Lessig's personal path of giving up his work copyright reform as his "issue" to focus on corru…

This issue is about limiting the ability to speak. Anyone that is against Super PACs and "getting money out of politics" is arguing that speech needs to be reduced. It's treating the symptom, not the cause. The reason so much money is being spent, is that the amount of money the government controls and the amount of regulations it creates the potential for groups to get significant advantages. The correct solution is…

His platform is not that speech needs to be reduced. It's that as many parties as possible need to be able to have a voice, and because certain entities can spend dramatically more money than the rest of society, they can drown out the voices of others.

Lessig gives specific examples of possible policies to illustrate that it's actually an increase in speech rather than a decrease in it, here: https://mayday.us/the-plan/#fundamental-reform-in-the-way-el...

Re: MayDay PAC

#32
post #23
post #17

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Maybe it's because I'm not American, but I've got no idea what "money is speech" means. It sounds almost Orwellian from this side of the pond.

Money is not equivalent to speech, but money is necessary to enable speech. Similarly, none of the following are speech, yet all are essential to it: telephones, computers, servers, printers, megaphones, and pens. If the government bans spending by certain groups, it is preventing them from acquiring the means to advocate for their ideas, which is the essential (and primary) purpose of political speech. The "money is…

I'm not sure I understand what you mean nickff, and I'd like to. Is this a slippery slope argument, where if we start restricting spending, we might empower the government to restrict other things (like stamps) which can influence elections? Or is it that you think that restricting spending by any person or corporation in any way would result in a more distorted process than what we have now? Or something else?

If it does seem likely that restrictions on spending _could_ restrict free speech, do you think that they _will necessarily_ restrict free speech? Maybe it just means we need to be careful in our implementation so we restrict the bad parts of unlimited spending while allowing the good stuff. I hope so, although I'd love to hear good evidence pointing either way.

And just to bring this back to the context of Lessig's plan, they don't want to restrict spending at all (https://mayday.us/the-plan/#fundamental-reform-in-the-way-el...), at least not until they try more important stuff first. They just want to make it more desirable to raise money from the many instead of the few.

Re: MayDay PAC

#33
post #14

The key thing that I don't think enough people understand is that this campaign finance reform that Lessig is working on is an issue for anyone who has ANY cause. Whether your cause is is climate change, net neutrality, or anything else, meaningful change with that issue is largely blocked by THIS issue (money in politics). Lessig's personal path of giving up his work copyright reform as his "issue" to focus on corru…

This issue is about limiting the ability to speak. Anyone that is against Super PACs and "getting money out of politics" is arguing that speech needs to be reduced. It's treating the symptom, not the cause. The reason so much money is being spent, is that the amount of money the government controls and the amount of regulations it creates the potential for groups to get significant advantages. The correct solution is…

How do you plan to enact this sort of reform? If your plans include a popular movement, you will greatly benefit by having your voice amplified vs that of the financial interests... which is exactly what this issue is about!

Re: MayDay PAC

#34
post #28
post #14

The key thing that I don't think enough people understand is that this campaign finance reform that Lessig is working on is an issue for anyone who has ANY cause. Whether your cause is is climate change, net neutrality, or anything else, meaningful change with that issue is largely blocked by THIS issue (money in politics). Lessig's personal path of giving up his work copyright reform as his "issue" to focus on corru…

[deleted]

1. Enacting this scheme can get a few extra honest politician into the office.

2. The pressure point is "re-election". You don't have to recall them, you just have to make it known to them that your continuous support requires certain kind of voting.

Re: MayDay PAC

#35
post #24
post #15

I'll probably donate to this in a few hours, but to understand it more fully, what is the argument against getting PACs/money out of politics? (Clearly there's a simple argument against MayDay PAC itself, that it might be unsuccessful in its mission, but that's a much weaker argument.) As far as I understand it, there are four main arguments for money in politics: 1) Money is speech; protecting free speech is importa…

One of the strongest arguments against FEC limits on speech is that many (very long-term) incumbent politicians support it. If these people support limits, it is most likely that they believe unlimited spending by outside groups will influence the populace in ways that are politically inconvenient (for the elected officials). Almost every American voter is (rightfully) skeptical of the honesty and integrity of their…

How is unlimited spending by entrenched powers who have already "won" in the current system going to encourage political dynamism?

Most American voters aren't PAC contributors, at least in any meaningful way. Is their speech less important due to less cash in their pocket?

Re: MayDay PAC

#36

I heard that if the July 4th deadline is met, the money will be matched. Does anyone know who is providing the matching funds?

At least for this second round of five million, I don't think they've announced at this point

Re: MayDay PAC

#37
post #34
post #28

Earlier quoted context omitted.

[deleted]

1. Enacting this scheme can get a few extra honest politician into the office. 2. The pressure point is "re-election". You don't have to recall them, you just have to make it known to them that your continuous support requires certain kind of voting.

[deleted]

Re: MayDay PAC

#38
Save your money, people.

I'm sorry, but this just seems like another in the long line of Lessig projects with laudable goals but will ultimately amount to very little. Remember Rootstrikers?

From MayDay.us:

> The funders of campaigns are holding our democracy hostage. We want to pay the ransom and get it back.

This analogy only works if the campaign funders also see themselves as holding democracy hostage. But guess what? They don't see themselves that way.

The moneyed elites see themselves as exercising their right to free speech on the issues important to them. And they have the Supreme Court and the House of Representatives in agreement with them on this issue.

And this is where Lessig errs. As his diagnosis for what ails our democracy is wrong, his treatment cannot be successful.

----

Lessig sees our political system as a small cabal of wealthy black hats thwarting the will of the people while he fights on the side of the white hats trying to revive small-d democracy in America.

But how do the "black hats" in this scenario see it?

They'll see it as this other moneyed interest group trying to stifle their First Amendment right to free speech. And they'll fight like hell to prevent Lessig's group from being successful. They're not going to just "accept the ransom" and slink back to their mansions.

And because of the terrain Lessig has chosen to fight this on ("Fight money in politics with more money in politics! Embrace the irony!") we're back to square one: One group of moneyed interests fighting another group of moneyed interests. Exciting, right?

Only now, the "white hats" face a distinct disadvantage. The "black hats" can raise $5 for every $1 raised by the "white hats." Sheldon Adelson can drop tens of millions like that. How do you like them odds?

----

What's my suggested fix? Well, to quote The Wire: "The game is rigged, but you cannot lose if you do not play."

Stop trying to beat the wealthy at their own game. Change the game entirely.

Look around, people. The whole system is beyond repair and has been for years. We're way past the point where a SuperPAC will fix a goddamn thing.

Nothing short of wholesale, violent revolution and a complete re-structuring of our society and economy will suffice. We have to utterly smash the bastions of privilege and power if we want any hope of a fair and democratic society in our lifetime.

Happy Fourth :)

Re: MayDay PAC

#39
post #24
post #15

I'll probably donate to this in a few hours, but to understand it more fully, what is the argument against getting PACs/money out of politics? (Clearly there's a simple argument against MayDay PAC itself, that it might be unsuccessful in its mission, but that's a much weaker argument.) As far as I understand it, there are four main arguments for money in politics: 1) Money is speech; protecting free speech is importa…

One of the strongest arguments against FEC limits on speech is that many (very long-term) incumbent politicians support it. If these people support limits, it is most likely that they believe unlimited spending by outside groups will influence the populace in ways that are politically inconvenient (for the elected officials). Almost every American voter is (rightfully) skeptical of the honesty and integrity of their…

> It seems plain that unlimited campaign spending by outside groups will allow for new ideas, and real change.

Absolutely not! Money is one of the most obvious forms of power in society, and therefore any group that has a lot of money to spend, is, by definition, already a significant part of the power structure. "Outside groups" with money are never true outside groups.

Re: MayDay PAC

#40
post #38

Save your money, people. I'm sorry, but this just seems like another in the long line of Lessig projects with laudable goals but will ultimately amount to very little. Remember Rootstrikers? From MayDay.us: > The funders of campaigns are holding our democracy hostage. We want to pay the ransom and get it back. This analogy only works if the campaign funders also see themselves as holding democracy hostage. But guess…

> We have to utterly smash the bastions of privilege and power if we want any hope of a fair and democratic society in our lifetime.

... then we end up with violent revolutionaries in control. What could possibly go wrong?

Post reply on HN