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

81–90 of 96 posts

Re: MayDay PAC

#81

Post by harryh »

aptwebapps wrote: post #76
harryh wrote: post #74

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I dunno how much it cost exactly but I'm sure that making and distributing "Hillary: The Movie" cost a lot more than 50 bucks. Limiting individuals to that total is a restriction on their speech. Now, maybe that's a restriction that we want to impose but it's disingenuous to say it's not a restriction.

It's not a limit, it's supplemental. You can still put your own money into whatever you want. (I'm just talking about the voucher idea here).

Huh, interesting. I stand completely corrected. Thanks!

Re: MayDay PAC

#82

Post by warfangle »

baddox wrote: post #46
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.

Maybe that's true on a sufficiently large scale, but for local/state politics I don't think it applies. For example, I would imagine that several policies in San Francisco and the Bay Area would be very different if political influence was perfectly correlated with wealth/capital.

On the other hand, policies of e.g., local government in North Carolina reflect the influence of the pork industry really clearly.

Re: MayDay PAC

#83

Post by warfangle »

nickff wrote: post #65
dbenamy wrote: post #59

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> 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? I…

>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.

On the other hand, if someone has no money with which they can enable their political speech, they are effectively disenfranchised.

Re: MayDay PAC

#84

Post by programminggeek »

Ron Paul Revolution.

I'm not sure if anyone remembers it, but they were great at raising money online. They had a lot of good ideas and frankly they were right on a lot of issues that helped win Obama the election when the rest of the Republican party was still gunning for more war in the Middle East the public no longer supported. Oh, and the economy.

Here's what happened...

Even with millions raised, the Republican nomination went to John McCain who brought us Sarah Palin. Months after a sound defeat, Fox News and Glen Beck co-opted the Ron Paul/Tea Party movement, which they previously spent 2 years making fun of, into the corporate political machine that it is now. The Tea Party of current times has little in common with the Tea Party that tried to get Ron Paul the nomination, twice.

This is a very long winded way of saying I've seen political movements pop up online before and they tend to fizzle and die, or have the energy co-opted into something that is not the same thing at all.

I fully expect if this becomes a big enough deal for some Democrats and Republicans to once again crow about campaign finance reform (because it sounds good, just ask John McCain), that it will get co-opted by big money into somehow reinforcing the current system or otherwise giving big moneu politics further advantages.

I'm not sure that any of us fully grasp how much money truly controls the political process at every level. There is so much money it's basically impossible to expunge it no matter how hard you try.

It's nice to see the excitement around this, even if I don't think it will pan out.

Re: MayDay PAC

#85

Post by programminggeek »

programminggeek wrote: post #84

Ron Paul Revolution. I'm not sure if anyone remembers it, but they were great at raising money online. They had a lot of good ideas and frankly they were right on a lot of issues that helped win Obama the election when the rest of the Republican party was still gunning for more war in the Middle East the public no longer supported. Oh, and the economy. Here's what happened... Even with millions raised, the Republican…

Also, campaign finance reform seems to e in vogue every couple decades or so. It's like the argument of mainframe vs. client server or monolithic codebases vs. modular codebases.

It feels like we are doomed to repeat ourselves.

Re: MayDay PAC

#86

Post by dantheman »

warfangle wrote: post #80
dantheman wrote: post #27

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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…

If money is speech, and speech is free, where's my free money? If money is speech, especially with regard to politics, lack of money is the stifling of speech (and to an extent, indirect disenfranchisement). Ergo, through not giving those without money any funds with which to perform their speech, the government is violating the first amendment.

Free speech means the government cannot stop you from speaking, not that it needs to provide you with a printing press.

Re: MayDay PAC

#87

Post by dantheman »

moultano wrote: post #70
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…

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 n…

Lessig's organization is also advocating to change the constitution to allow restrictions on speech.

Re: MayDay PAC

#88

Post by nardi »

baddox wrote: post #68
MaysonL wrote: post #56

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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?

Regardless, at least it's attacking the problem at its roots.

Re: MayDay PAC

#89

Post by cheese1756 »

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…

How do we know that incumbents are afraid of super PAC spending because it will create change and influence the population? Couldn't it just be that they are afraid of a super PAC dumping money into attack ads and an opponent's campaign if they go against the wishes of a special interest group?

Re: MayDay PAC

#90

Post by nanomage »

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 donated last week. The big problem is, those with largest money, have more unfair access to donating. Comcast just got to #2 in lobbying money. 3m per fiscal quarter buys monopoly. Seems easier for me to contribute against it. #americaninternetspeeds

http://techcrunch.com/2014/04/23/google-att-verizon-and-comc...

Post reply on HN