Hacker News Board Hacker News, browsed like a classic message board
Live data from Hacker News

MayDay PAC

avc.com

Post reply on HN
Print view View original

51–60 of 96 posts

Re: MayDay PAC

#51

Post by jellicle »

inglesp wrote: post #17
rdl wrote: 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…

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.

It's because you're not American.

In the U.S., there's a long-standing propaganda campaign to get people to believe that limiting the ability of billionaires to buy elections is equivalent to coming to your house and cutting your tongue out at the roots. Pretty much exactly the same thing. No difference.

I agree that it's pretty baffling to the rest of the world. Has anyone here written a seven figure check to influence a particular political campaign? If not, this movement is a net positive for you. If so, then this movement is a net negative for you. But very many Americans think of themselves as temporarily embarrassed billionaires.

Re: MayDay PAC

#52

Post by jellicle »

nickff wrote: post #43
dbenamy wrote: post #32

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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…

My basic point was that if the FEC is allowed to restrict third party campaign spending, this power will be very wide-sweeping, and necessarily allow the FEC to selectively silence any group or type of speech they dislike. I agree with the result of the Citizen's United case (in allowing unlimited third party campaign spending) because, in the words of Chief Justice Roberts "We don't put our First Amendment Rights in…

> My basic point was that if the FEC is allowed to restrict third party campaign spending, this power will be very wide-sweeping, and necessarily allow the FEC to selectively silence any group or type of speech they dislike.

Does that follow? At all?

Re: MayDay PAC

#53

Post by jellicle »

edavis wrote: 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…

> Remember Rootstrikers?

Err, this is a Rootstrikers project.

Re: MayDay PAC

#54

Post by edavis »

pyre wrote: post #40
edavis wrote: 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?

Compared to the philosopher kings we have now?

Congress has an 80% disapproval rating. The President rains death from above via flying robots and secret kill lists. The Supreme Court routinely stacks the deck in favor of the powerful. Inequality keeps rising and more and more people keep falling behind.

> ... then we end up with violent revolutionaries in control.

You mean like how the United States itself was founded?

> What could possibly go wrong?

Not sure. Maybe we'll have a lot of parades in 240 years.

Re: MayDay PAC

#55

Post by nickff »

jellicle wrote: post #52
nickff wrote: post #43

Earlier quoted context omitted.

My basic point was that if the FEC is allowed to restrict third party campaign spending, this power will be very wide-sweeping, and necessarily allow the FEC to selectively silence any group or type of speech they dislike. I agree with the result of the Citizen's United case (in allowing unlimited third party campaign spending) because, in the words of Chief Justice Roberts "We don't put our First Amendment Rights in…

> My basic point was that if the FEC is allowed to restrict third party campaign spending, this power will be very wide-sweeping, and necessarily allow the FEC to selectively silence any group or type of speech they dislike. Does that follow? At all?

Do you expect me to answer 'no'?

Of course it does follow. If you look at how the FEC regulates campaigns, they do so by creating intricate and/or vague rules, which they can subsequently enforce against any speakers or type of speech within their purview. When any government agency is allowed to regulate something, they are given a great deal of deference by the courts and the legislature, this administrative discretion "necessarily allow[s] the FEC to selectively silence any group or type of speech they dislike".

Re: MayDay PAC

#56

Post by MaysonL »

baddox wrote: post #45
rdl wrote: 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…

I think one argument is that it's the wrong approach to solve the problems with government. Of course, that idea depends on an opinion of what the problems are with government. A "limited government" approach I've seen is that money in politics isn't so bad if the government's ability to use physical force to pick winners and losers in the economy is very limited. Why would the tech industry spend millions lobbying i…

OK, maybe you're right about limiting government (I think you're wrong, but I've been wrong before). So how do you think there's a snowball's chance in Hades to limit government when there's so much money behind the current setup? How are you going to cut the defense budget?

Re: MayDay PAC

#57

Post by Avshalom »

nickff wrote: post #44
pron wrote: post #39

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> 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.

If unlimited campaign spending is so advantageous to the political insiders, and entrenched interests, then why are they (McCain, Feingold, and other long-term career politicians) so opposed to it? How often do you see a politician advocate for something that puts them at a significant disadvantage, and helps their critics?

The media spent decades basically felating McCain for championing cfr.

Re: MayDay PAC

#58

Post by cpeterso »

nickff wrote: post #44
pron wrote: post #39

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> 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.

If unlimited campaign spending is so advantageous to the political insiders, and entrenched interests, then why are they (McCain, Feingold, and other long-term career politicians) so opposed to it? How often do you see a politician advocate for something that puts them at a significant disadvantage, and helps their critics?

Long time incumbents can assume their position is safe unless there is a well funded challenger. Incumbents have plenty of air time and name recognition.

Re: MayDay PAC

#59

Post by dbenamy »

nickff wrote: post #43
dbenamy wrote: post #32

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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…

My basic point was that if the FEC is allowed to restrict third party campaign spending, this power will be very wide-sweeping, and necessarily allow the FEC to selectively silence any group or type of speech they dislike. I agree with the result of the Citizen's United case (in allowing unlimited third party campaign spending) because, in the words of Chief Justice Roberts "We don't put our First Amendment Rights in…

> With respect to these "matching" systems, I do not believe that anyone should be forced to support (through taxes,) campaigns they do not support.

I can appreciate that. It's infuriating to feel like our tax dollars are going to things we don't support. I guess ultimately it seems to me like a question of net result- if some of my tax money goes to support campaigns I hate, but the overall result is a system that works better and is able to solve more problems effectively, that seems like a worthwhile trade.

An analogy might be public schools. I have my share of complaints about how many public schools do things, and sometimes my tax dollars wind up supporting crappy school policies, but ensuring that everyone has the opportunity to go to school seems like a net win, so I don't want to prevent my tax dollars from going there.

(As a side note: I'm open to replacing the public school system with something else that does the job better, but to bring the analogy back to our government, I don't know of any more promising approach to fixing government.)

> For one thing, this disenfranchises the people who expressly refuse to support any candidate,

I think the voucher system doesn't do that. You could always chose not to give your vouchers to anyone.

> and necessarily helps people who have positions which give them access to the subsidies (such as members of the Republican and Democratic parties).

I don't see how this would happen under either system proposed on https://mayday.us/the-plan/#fundamental-reform-in-the-way-el.... Can you elaborate?

Re: MayDay PAC

#60

Post by jellicle »

nickff wrote: post #55
jellicle wrote: post #52

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> My basic point was that if the FEC is allowed to restrict third party campaign spending, this power will be very wide-sweeping, and necessarily allow the FEC to selectively silence any group or type of speech they dislike. Does that follow? At all?

Do you expect me to answer 'no'? Of course it does follow. If you look at how the FEC regulates campaigns, they do so by creating intricate and/or vague rules, which they can subsequently enforce against any speakers or type of speech within their purview. When any government agency is allowed to regulate something, they are given a great deal of deference by the courts and the legislature, this administrative discre…

> Do you expect me to answer 'no'?

Only if you know anything about the history of campaign finance regulation and First Amendment jurisprudence in the U.S., which I guess you do not.

Post reply on HN