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

61–70 of 96 posts

Re: MayDay PAC

#61

Post by pron »

cpeterso wrote: post #58
nickff wrote: post #44

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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.

Right. Money is not the only source of power.

Re: MayDay PAC

#62

Post by justsee »

dantheman wrote: post #27
ehc wrote: 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…

> Anyone that is against Super PACs and "getting money out of politics" is arguing that speech needs to be reduced.

No they're arguing Super PACs distort and limit healthy, democratic speech; that Super PACs are detrimental to speech.

The corollary to your assertion is that Super PACs increase speech. But this 'increased speech' can similarly be 'increased' by foreign political donations, which highlights the absurdity of these 'speech' claims to anyone interested in reclaiming a properly functioning democracy.

Re: MayDay PAC

#63

Post by michaelt »

nickff wrote: post #24
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…

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…

  One of the strongest arguments against FEC limits on
  speech is that many (very long-term) incumbent politicians
  support it.
If I was a politician, I would attempt to capture both the benefits of big-money politics and the benefits of public opposition to big-money politics.

So, in my public speeches to voters I would claim I was 100% in favour of campaign finance reform - I'm concerned, just like you! I don't like these million-dollar donors, I got into politics to represent normal Americans like yourself! Unfortunately until the system changes I have to go along with it, obviously, so I will be taking some million-dollar donations. Once elected I'll get on that reform as soon as I can, honest! First I have to fix the economy/ensure national security/balance the budget/ban guns/fight terrorism/take on the banks/fix the college tuition bubble/deal with income inequality/reform patents/fix contraception access/educate more scientists/fix agricultural subsidies/reduce our dependence on foreign energy/reform immigration/fix the DHS/stand up to Putin/bring peace to the middle east/kiss this baby. As soon as those are done, campaign finance reform will be my top priority.

Hence, I'd get the money of the big donors without alienating regular voters by publicly supporting the current (messed up) state of campaign finance.

Re: MayDay PAC

#64

Post by nickff »

jellicle wrote: post #60
nickff wrote: post #55

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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.

In that case, please enlighten us all, instead of simply posting pithy remarks.

Re: MayDay PAC

#65

Post by nickff »

dbenamy wrote: post #59
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…

> 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 w…

On your first point, I am not a consequentialist, so I doubt that I will be convinced by your points, and that I can convince you of mine. Though I must state that it should not be the purpose of government to knowingly do immoral things.

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

Do you get a refund when you refuse to give any politician the voucher? If not, then your tax money is actually going towards paying for other people's vouchers, whether you like it or not. You have been effectively disenfranchised.

>"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?"

People operating in the existing parties will get the great majority of the voucher money, as most voters pay little (if any attention) to the political process (operating largely on name recognition). These voters will automatically donate to members of their own parties (especially if faced with limited choices), or simply the incumbent, while the little-known third party candidates and non-partisan causes will fall even further behind where they already are. This problem may be alleviated (though not solved) by allowing the vouchers to go to any political cause, including charities, lobbying organizations, and think-tanks.

Re: MayDay PAC

#66

Post by nickff »

cpeterso wrote: post #58
nickff wrote: post #44

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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.

>"Long time incumbents can assume their position is safe unless there is a well funded challenger."

You have restated my position quite succinctly; FEC campaign regulations are a way of preventing "well funded challenger[s]".

Re: MayDay PAC

#67

Post by rayiner »

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…

> Money is speech; protecting free speech is important, and protecting political speech (and thus financial donations to campaigns) is probably the most important form of protected speech.

The argument when it comes to PAC's is not that "money is speech." It's "speech is speech." Donations to PAC's are spent independently on fundamental, protected political speech: advertisements, etc. Functionally, they are no different than Sierra Club or any other advocacy organization: they just support causes the internet hive-mind doesn't like.

Also, if you limit PAC's, then you suddenly give rich individuals tremendously more power: they're now the only ones that can bring large amounts of money to bear on supporting a candidate. That is, unless you straight up destroy the first amendment by telling even individuals that they can't make this or that movie or political ad.

Re: MayDay PAC

#68

Post by baddox »

MaysonL wrote: post #56
baddox wrote: post #45

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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?

Likewise, how do you think there's a snowball's chance in Hades to reform campaign finance?

Re: MayDay PAC

#69

Post by moultano »

rayiner wrote: post #67
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…

> Money is speech; protecting free speech is important, and protecting political speech (and thus financial donations to campaigns) is probably the most important form of protected speech. The argument when it comes to PAC's is not that "money is speech." It's "speech is speech." Donations to PAC's are spent independently on fundamental, protected political speech: advertisements, etc. Functionally, they are no diffe…

Lessig has in the past advocated for a variety of solutions that don't involve restricting speech, or organization. One option is to give each voter a $50 voucher that they can give to whatever political organization they wish. This retains all the of the functions of politics that we see today, but restores the dependence of politicians on the people, rather than the few who give most of the political money today.

Re: MayDay PAC

#70

Post by moultano »

dbenamy wrote: post #32
nickff wrote: post #23

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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…

Nickff is making the same argument that the Supreme Court did. Lessig's organization is specifically choosing strategies that don't conflict with that decision.

The Supreme Court ruled that you can't restrict any organization from using money to influence elections, because that infringes of the fundamental rights of people to organize, and pool their money to get their message out.

Lessig's strategy as a result is not to restrict money in politics, but rather to augment it with some fashion of public funding (for instance, vouchers given to all registered voters.) This shifts the balance of power away from the big players with narrow interests, and makes the money game itself more democratic. It's a much more pragmatic approach than the campaign finance restrictions that have been tried in the past.

I personally think that Citizen's United was the correct legal decision, but it struck down a necessary law. To me that means that it was just the wrong mechanism to bring about reform. Lessig's is much better.

Post reply on HN