They raised ~1 mil in 2 weeks. So they thought they could then raise 5x that amount in 2x the time? How is that a rational conclusion?
How to use a super PAC to kill super PACs
11–20 of 38 posts
Re: How to use a super PAC to kill super PACs
#12I don't see how subsidizing candidates who agree to donation limits will work. In the last few Presidential elections we've already blown past the viability of the existing public funding.
Anyway, I am one of those rare folks who thinks there's not enough money in politics. Or at least that we shouldn't worry about the money that's already there. The Center for Responsive Politics (a pro-reform group) estimates that total Federal direct election spending reached $6 billion in 2012[1]. Even if "shadowy groups" spent twice that over again (they didn't), that's $18 billion worth of spending to influence the future of a $3.6T government regulating a $15T economy.
To put it another way, $18B is less than half the annual revenue of the Coca Cola company, or only 6x what Americans spend on scented candles every year.
[1] http://www.opensecrets.org/news/2012/10/2012-election-spendi...
Re: How to use a super PAC to kill super PACs
#13Said every SuperPAC ever. What politician isn't for fixing broken government? Who is standing up for broken government? What congress isn't committed to fundamental reform?
Exactly. Just the other day, Obama proclaimed that 80% of US citizens want immigration reform. When it's worded that vaguely, sure, that's true ... the vast majority want that. But "reform" means different things to different people, and very often the opposite things.
Worse, it's often mutually exclusive. In fact, "reform" to some people means ensuring we do not do the things that "reform" means to others.
Consider ... does immigration reform mean?
• keeping families together
• amnesty
• legal worker status
• in-state college tuition for non-citizens
• a fence, wall, drones, troops, sensors
• stopping Mexican troops when they cross the border
• dealing with cartels who vandalize billboards to threaten US officials (plato o plomo)
• ... etc
Many people want some of these things to happen, and want some of these things to not happen. Yet they all want "reform".
The same is true for every "reform" of "broken" government.
Re: How to use a super PAC to kill super PACs
#14I don't see how subsidizing candidates who agree to donation limits will work. In the last few Presidential elections we've already blown past the viability of the existing public funding. Anyway, I am one of those rare folks who thinks there's not enough money in politics. Or at least that we shouldn't worry about the money that's already there. The Center for Responsive Politics (a pro-reform group) estimates that…
Good points. McCain & Feingold passed campaign finance reform about 10 years ago, for the claimed purpose of getting money out of politics.
What that bill did succeed in doing was put more boundaries in place for less-powerful entities, while ensuring the more-powerful entities can do what they want, via fiat, loophole, secrecy, whatever.
Mission accomplished?!
Re: How to use a super PAC to kill super PACs
#15This is incredibly important. For all the really impassioned conversation about the broken state of US politics (on HN and elsewhere), the Mayday PAC is one of the very few legitimate plans-of-action. It's no silver bullet, but 1000% a needed step toward reform and worth your support.
It might be interesting if they had more of a platform, than 'fixing broken government', or 'fundamental reform', everyone wants that. The entire point of government is to figure out what those statements really mean...
Check out https://mayday.us/the-plan and also http://reform.to/#/reforms for specific pieces of legislation that will be the 1st step in addressing the problem.
Re: How to use a super PAC to kill super PACs
#16This is incredibly important. For all the really impassioned conversation about the broken state of US politics (on HN and elsewhere), the Mayday PAC is one of the very few legitimate plans-of-action. It's no silver bullet, but 1000% a needed step toward reform and worth your support.
It might be interesting if they had more of a platform, than 'fixing broken government', or 'fundamental reform', everyone wants that. The entire point of government is to figure out what those statements really mean...
Mayday is run by Lawrence Lessig of Creative Commons fame (the guy also did a lot of work with Aaron Schwartz). He has very specific plans on what he wants this PAC to do. Check out his March TED talk for example: http://www.ted.com/talks/lawrence_lessig_the_unstoppable_wal...
The problem and his strategy are laid out in his (free CC-licensed) book The USA is Lesterland: http://lesterland.lessig.org/ As with all big ideas, that requires a bit more time to digest than a HN comment. Plus, he's a better writer than I am.
The main idea of his PAC is if political bills can only happen in our system with the approval of 'Big Money', you need Big Money to pass the reform that would get rid of Big Money's influence. Hence, you need a PAC that gets involved in specific races and puts pressure on candidates who don't support the changes they're pushing for.
On a more broader level, Lessig is one of the big names in a loose coalition pushing for a constitutional convention that would amend the Constitution to overturn Citizen's United. The neat thing about such a convention is it's a checks-and-balances way that the popular vote can effectively by-pass their congressional representatives. This has happened only once before: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Convention_to_propose_amendment...
This can happen if 2/3's of states agree to participate. California just passed a "we're in" bill a few days ago, joining Vermont. Similar bills are pending in other states: http://www.sfgate.com/politics/article/California-seeks-cons...
This is actually one of the few non-partisan issues that both sides can agree on. Well, the constituents of both sides... most representatives hate this idea, which is exactly why you need a well-funded PAC to exert influence onto them.
Re: How to use a super PAC to kill super PACs
#17I don't see how subsidizing candidates who agree to donation limits will work. In the last few Presidential elections we've already blown past the viability of the existing public funding. Anyway, I am one of those rare folks who thinks there's not enough money in politics. Or at least that we shouldn't worry about the money that's already there. The Center for Responsive Politics (a pro-reform group) estimates that…
Republic, Lost[0] is a really good read on this (even if it is by Lessig himself). He lays out how he would see the process working, I believe at the Presidential level. The basic idea is running on a platform that promises change as well as a commitment to step down once said change is accomplished. With the amount of money already wrapped up in politics (especially between two large parties), it strikes me as a tough sales pitch for either party's old guard.
To your point about there not being enough money in politics: I'd agree with you if money existed in a vacuum for its own sake. The question should arguably be is there enough/too much purchasable influence in politics.
Re: How to use a super PAC to kill super PACs
#18Earlier quoted context omitted.
It might be interesting if they had more of a platform, than 'fixing broken government', or 'fundamental reform', everyone wants that. The entire point of government is to figure out what those statements really mean...
Mayday is run by Lawrence Lessig of Creative Commons fame (the guy also did a lot of work with Aaron Schwartz). He has very specific plans on what he wants this PAC to do. Check out his March TED talk for example: http://www.ted.com/talks/lawrence_lessig_the_unstoppable_wal... The problem and his strategy are laid out in his (free CC-licensed) book The USA is Lesterland: http://lesterland.lessig.org/ As with all big…
...a constitutional convention that would amend the Constitution to overturn Citizen's United.
That's a great deal of effort to overturn a ruling which was literally this: a few dudes who made a video critical of Hillary Clinton are allowed to advertise for the sale and viewing of that video. I haven't seen the video myself and don't particularly care to do. I'm sure it's a horrible movie made by horrible people. However, it seems like really basic political and commercial speech, which ought to be protected from government interference. If Lessig wants to overturn that, I'm glad he will fail. Why not a constitutional amendment for Eldred?
Re: How to use a super PAC to kill super PACs
#19They raised ~1 mil in 2 weeks. So they thought they could then raise 5x that amount in 2x the time? How is that a rational conclusion?
Sure, if they spent the first million on advertising :)
Re: How to use a super PAC to kill super PACs
#20Earlier quoted context omitted.
Mayday is run by Lawrence Lessig of Creative Commons fame (the guy also did a lot of work with Aaron Schwartz). He has very specific plans on what he wants this PAC to do. Check out his March TED talk for example: http://www.ted.com/talks/lawrence_lessig_the_unstoppable_wal... The problem and his strategy are laid out in his (free CC-licensed) book The USA is Lesterland: http://lesterland.lessig.org/ As with all big…
...a constitutional convention that would amend the Constitution to overturn Citizen's United. That's a great deal of effort to overturn a ruling which was literally this: a few dudes who made a video critical of Hillary Clinton are allowed to advertise for the sale and viewing of that video. I haven't seen the video myself and don't particularly care to do. I'm sure it's a horrible movie made by horrible people. How…
There's literally what a case decides, and there's effectively what it allows.
Effectively it opens the door for unlimited campaign spending by anonymous donors. Have you ever donated to a campaign? How much? $20, $100? Perhaps $1000 if you've got money to burn? What did it get you? A thank you form letter from some intern staffer? That's cute.
Now, if you allow unlimited anonymous donations, we're talking about order-of-magnitude $10k, $100k. NOW you've got the politician's ear. Think the people who donate on the order of your annual salary are going to be whispering the same thing the people who donate $20 want their representative to hear?
More importantly, if you're a career politician looking to secure $1M for your next campaign 4 years down the line, are you going to spend your time courting 50k grassroots donors, or are you going to just find 10 people to attend your $100k-a-plate fundraiser? (+/- PAC rules on staying "independent" of course... just "fire" your campaign manager and give him a recommendation for a consulting gig... the $100k is actually for the independent consulting organization). It's a no brainer who you're going to represent.
So, now we have very wealthy people who can effectively donate unlimited sums of money anonymously outside of campaign disclosure laws (and therefore outside of unwanted public spotlight that would otherwise discourage them) to push for their interests.
When the only people who exert influence are the absurdly wealthy, well that starts to sound more like an oligarchy, not a representative democracy. Seems like a good enough cause to amend the constitution to me.