How to use a super PAC to kill super PACs • Hacker News Board

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

#31

Post by floatrock » Wed, Jul 02, 2014, 9:17 PM UTC

rayiner wrote: post #24

floatrock wrote: post #20

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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 i…

  > It does not say that the government cannot prevent candidates from taking unlimited amounts of money for their campaigns.

Correct. Hence the "+/- independence" comment.

Sure, they're just making a documentary. That happens to come out during an election campaign. And it's advertised heavily with the same language as campaign slogans. And given away for free to anyone who will listen.

But it's not political spending, it's free speech.

The problem is it's both.

We're still effectively in a situation where large interests can collectively pool their resources together anonymously to win far more influence than the people who are supposed to be democratically represented here.

But more perversely, it's hijacking free speech as a backdoor loophole into political gerrymandering. For every Sierra Club citizen's group, there are far more WalMarts or Koch Industries with far deeper pockets. The Sierra Club dues-paying members are being drowned out by the voices of the few and wealthy -- again, it's looking like an oligarchy, not a representative democracy. Yes, you can't stop something like that without limiting free speech, which of course nobody wants either.

As far as I see it, once a loophole like this is identified, you can either argue for abolishing all campaign finance laws (since we've found ways around them), or you reconcile campaign finance laws with free speech that looks like and quacks like campaign expenditures.

What the legal framework for that would be, you're right, I don't know. Call it overturning McCutcheon vs. FEC if you don't want to call it Citizens United. Or just call it Campaign Finance Reform. There's no single boogeyman here, it's a refactor of the system we're talking about.

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

#32

Post by vijayr » Wed, Jul 02, 2014, 9:24 PM UTC

Can someone explain how this is going to work? They are going to send a handful of representatives to washington - what is the guarantee that those representatives won't change their stand once they get elected (or the money dries up)? And who choses which candidates to support?

Also, isn't 12 million (assuming they raise that much) too small? May be it is a good start.

Not trying to be negative, just trying to understand what their plan is.

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

#33

Post by head_stomp » Wed, Jul 02, 2014, 10:24 PM UTC

floatrock wrote: post #31

rayiner wrote: post #24

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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 i…

> It does not say that the government cannot prevent candidates from taking unlimited amounts of money for their campaigns. Correct. Hence the "+/- independence" comment. Sure, they're just making a documentary. That happens to come out during an election campaign. And it's advertised heavily with the same language as campaign slogans. And given away for free to anyone who will listen. But it's not political spending…

I'd call it overturning the first amendment. Freedom of the press specifically concerned a few wealthy guys printing and distributing pamphlets to unequally influence politics. There is no loophole. I very strongly oppose your political preferences.

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

#34

Post by floatrock » Wed, Jul 02, 2014, 11:29 PM UTC

head_stomp wrote: post #33

floatrock wrote: post #31

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> It does not say that the government cannot prevent candidates from taking unlimited amounts of money for their campaigns. Correct. Hence the "+/- independence" comment. Sure, they're just making a documentary. That happens to come out during an election campaign. And it's advertised heavily with the same language as campaign slogans. And given away for free to anyone who will listen. But it's not political spending…

I'd call it overturning the first amendment. Freedom of the press specifically concerned a few wealthy guys printing and distributing pamphlets to unequally influence politics. There is no loophole. I very strongly oppose your political preferences.

Candidates with the most spending win 8 of 10 senate races and 9 of 10 house races. It's there in the data: https://www.opensecrets.org/news/2012/01/big-spender-always-...

The reality is money buys elections.

Given the choice between 10 donors that can afford to just drop well above the median annual salary (albeit as 'independent' documentaries) and trying to rally 50k mom-and-pop donors that contribute $20 each, it's a no-brainer which is the easier route to electoral success.

The question is do you want to be represented by the voice of the 10 or the 50k?

We're not talking about overturning the first. We're trying to figure out how to reconcile the first with decentralizing some very centralized influence over public policy.

You should be distrustful of any centralized political system. That's what we have, not by design but by reality.

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

#35

Post by jessaustin » Wed, Jul 02, 2014, 11:36 PM UTC

floatrock wrote: post #34

head_stomp wrote: post #33

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I'd call it overturning the first amendment. Freedom of the press specifically concerned a few wealthy guys printing and distributing pamphlets to unequally influence politics. There is no loophole. I very strongly oppose your political preferences.

Candidates with the most spending win 8 of 10 senate races and 9 of 10 house races. It's there in the data: https://www.opensecrets.org/news/2012/01/big-spender-always-... The reality is money buys elections. Given the choice between 10 donors that can afford to just drop well above the median annual salary (albeit as 'independent' documentaries) and trying to rally 50k mom-and-pop donors that contribute $20 each, it…

Incumbents win most elections. They also raise the most money, because... they're going to win. Campaign donors are corrupt but they're not stupid.

You're not going to fix the problems you want to fix, because you don't see how they are reinforced by every other aspect of the system.

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

#36

Post by floatrock » Thu, Jul 03, 2014, 12:27 AM UTC

jessaustin wrote: post #35

floatrock wrote: post #34

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Candidates with the most spending win 8 of 10 senate races and 9 of 10 house races. It's there in the data: https://www.opensecrets.org/news/2012/01/big-spender-always-... The reality is money buys elections. Given the choice between 10 donors that can afford to just drop well above the median annual salary (albeit as 'independent' documentaries) and trying to rally 50k mom-and-pop donors that contribute $20 each, it…

Incumbents win most elections. They also raise the most money, because... they're going to win. Campaign donors are corrupt but they're not stupid. You're not going to fix the problems you want to fix, because you don't see how they are reinforced by every other aspect of the system.

You're right, it's a self-reinforcing loop: incumbents win most elections, so they raise the most money, so they run the most effective campaigns, so they win the incumbency.

The solution is to chip away at this self-reinforcing feedback loop. Decentralize the fundraising through effective campaign finance limits and you create more dependence on small donors. Small donors care more about having their beliefs represented than choosing the winning horse (and the influence that comes with the winning horse being indebted to you).

The incumbency bias is a circular result of centralized money going for the easy bet. Decentralize public funding and the easy bet becomes less clear, weakening the feedback loop.

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

#37

Post by fleitz » Thu, Jul 03, 2014, 1:07 AM UTC

vijayr wrote: post #32

Can someone explain how this is going to work? They are going to send a handful of representatives to washington - what is the guarantee that those representatives won't change their stand once they get elected (or the money dries up)? And who choses which candidates to support? Also, isn't 12 million (assuming they raise that much) too small? May be it is a good start. Not trying to be negative, just trying to under…

Pass a bunch of laws outlawing what they perceive to be wrong with democracy, ignore the unintended consequences, raise money based on those consequences, pass more laws, create more unintended consequences, raise more money.

Basically they are going to do exactly what everyone has done before because their plan is to do exactly what everyone has done before, which is why they are raising money to get money out of politics, apparently this solution has eluded us for years because no one could raise $2.6 million dollars.

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

#38

Post by snowwrestler » Thu, Jul 03, 2014, 2:06 AM UTC

brenschluss wrote: post #30

snowwrestler wrote: post #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…

> 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.

If they spend a lot of money, and it has no effect, that would put a dent in the theory that money always has an effect.

They'd be in good company, though. The Sunlight Foundation found no correlation between the outside spending in the 2012 federal elections and race outcomes.