Live data from Hacker News

How to use a super PAC to kill super PACs

washingtonpost.com

21–30 of 38 posts

Re: How to use a super PAC to kill super PACs

#21
post #5

The submission title ("Larry Lessig's PAC is fighting big money in politics with crowdsourced Bitcoin") was not only highly editorialized, it was linkbaity (Bitcoin is barely mentioned). Submitters: this is against the HN guidelines. Please don't do it. The article title isn't great either. We can change it if someone suggests an accurate, neutral replacement, preferably using language from the article. Usually an ar…

End of the second paragraph: launching a super PAC that would dismantle the modern-day campaign finance system

Re: How to use a super PAC to kill super PACs

#23
I have donated twice, and I hope everyone here donates as well. This is the first step toward fixing our democracy. If you want to get corporate bribery and cronyism out of politics, it's time to put your money where your mouth is.

Re: How to use a super PAC to kill super PACs

#24

Earlier quoted context omitted.

...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 orde…

Citizens United absolutely does not allow for what you're suggesting. Citizens United says that the government cannot limit how people, organized into corporations or otherwise, spend their money supporting particular candidates. It does not say that the government cannot prevent candidates from taking unlimited amounts of money for their campaigns.

That is a key distinction: the first follows from the government's inability to restrict free speech, whether or not it takes money to produce that speech (in this case, a documentary). The second follows from the ability of the government to reasonably regulate the candidates themselves and their activities.

If Lessig wants to overturn Citizens United, I too hope he fails. Because that means the West Virginia legislature can ban Sierra Club from creating videos about the environmental destruction caused by coal mining. It means that the government could ban Sicko (produced by the Weinstein Company).

Citizens United was not a "money is speech case." It was a "movies are speech" case.

Re: How to use a super PAC to kill super PACs

#25

I 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…

Note that the $6 billion is for a Presidential election year. The last mid-term Congressional year (2010) was $4 billion. The way these are accounted, there is no election spending for 2009 or 2011 (spending for 2009 is counted towards the 2010 election). Thus, we're talking about $2.5 billion per year, or less than Americans spend each year on scented candles.

Re: How to use a super PAC to kill super PACs

#26

Earlier quoted context omitted.

...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 orde…

This comment spectacularly misrepresents the impact of the Citzens United decision.

What the decision "effectively" does is acknowledge the fact that people don't lose free speech rights when speaking as a group. Without it, political speech by companies, unions, nonprofits, etc. would be stripped of First Amendment protection, and thus could be deemed illegal at the whims of politicians (most likely the ones already in power).

I assume that's not what you want.

Re: How to use a super PAC to kill super PACs

#27
post #8

Said 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?

This is very specifically about campaign finance reform, not about "fixing broken government". Their thesis is that no fix can happen while politicians are forced to spend their time catering to very rich folks in order to keep their jobs, and this is meant to help us towards a solution.

Re: How to use a super PAC to kill super PACs

#28
I really like that Lessig is doing this because it is a concrete test of his assertion that money distorts politics.

If Mayday PAC raises their money (and I hope they do), they will go into 5 House races and attempt to make campaign finance reform the determining factor in how voters choose their representative.

If they succeed, it will ironically demonstrate that Lessig is right about the power of money to shape the mind of the electorate.

But if they spend the money and fail to make campaign finance reform a major voter issue, it will be a demonstration that money is actually not particularly distorting. (I think this is likely; voters typically care a lot more about issues or ideology than process.)

The most annoying aspect of the Mayday PAC coverage is watching tech reporters breathlessly report the most banal aspects of any political campaign, like this:

> Then there's the question of what Mayday PAC will spend its resources on. As a super PAC, the outfit isn't allowed to give directly to campaigns. But it can spend unlimited amounts to promote one candidate over another, or to defend a candidate from attacks. There are even more choices Mayday PAC will have to make. For advertising alone, you can choose from radio ads, TV ads and online ads. You can take out ads on broadcast TV, satellite TV or cable. You can pick the time of day. You can conduct a massive air war that reaches everybody in a market, or you can spend more on selectively targeted ads that simultaneously show one household a 30-second spot tied to gun control and their next-door neighbor an ad linked to healthcare.

Re: How to use a super PAC to kill super PACs

#29
post #4

Slightly relevant: Lessig is currently doing an AMA (with Jack Abramoff) over on reddit [1].It's only an hour old so there's still a chance that your question might be answered. [1] http://www.reddit.com/r/IAmA/comments/29nq9p/lawrence_lessig...

For me the association with Jack Abramoff damages Larry Lessig's credibility on the topic of corruption. Abramoff has no special insight into the problem; nothing he did was particularly innovative or insightful. He simply did things that everyone knows is wrong, and got famous because he got caught.

Abramoff demonstrated that he would do or say anything to succeed in lobbying. Now that he's a convicted felon, he's doing and saying anything to succeed as a pundit. He's exactly the same person; only the context has changed.

That Lessig takes him seriously makes me think that Lessig is dangerously naive about the system and people he is criticizing.

Re: How to use a super PAC to kill super PACs

#30

I really like that Lessig is doing this because it is a concrete test of his assertion that money distorts politics. If Mayday PAC raises their money (and I hope they do), they will go into 5 House races and attempt to make campaign finance reform the determining factor in how voters choose their representative. If they succeed, it will ironically demonstrate that Lessig is right about the power of money to shape the…

> But if they spend the money and fail to make campaign finance reform a major voter issue, it will be a demonstration that money is actually not particularly distorting.

No, it would be a demonstration that money, for many voters, may not initially appear distorting. It could also be a demonstration that some voters, like you, are largely apathetic to whether or not a political process is influenced by money.

Post reply on HN