Lessig's Mayday PAC Scrambling To Cross Crowd Funding Finish Line 117
First time accepted submitter SingleEntendre (1273012) writes "Time is running out for the Mayday PAC to reach its latest crowd funding goal of $5M. The total currently stands at $4.5M. Led by Harvard Law Professor Lawrence Lessig, the Mayday PAC seeks to reduce the influence of money in US politics by 2016, primarily by identifying and supporting congressional candidates who share this vision. If phase 2 is successful, with matching funds the total raised will be $12M. A self-imposed deadline arrives at of midnight tonight, July 4th, Hawaii-Aleutian Standard Time (HAST)." (And now the total's at $4,700,066.)
Politicians making a promise. (Score:1)
So we're going to elect some politicians that promise to do something different? Where have I heard that before? (Every 2-6 years)
I'm more a fan of the Wolf-PAC strategy - get a constitutional convention by having non-corrupt state-level politicians pass an amendment.
Re: (Score:3)
"...get a constitutional convention by having non-corrupt state-level politicians pass an amendment."
Clearly you haven't been paying attention. State level races are as bad as national level when it comes to money as influence.
"So we're going to elect some politicians that promise to do something different? Where have I heard that before? (Every 2-6 years)"
Your gutless resignation isn't doing any good. Lessig has a great idea and he understands just how fundamentally broken the system is. He is fighting
Re: (Score:3)
>He is fighting the system from within the system, something I didn't think was possible
Quite. I have my doubts as to how successful it will actually be in the long term*, but the only other alternative seems to be violent uprising, about which I have even greater doubts as to the wisdom and efficacy of. So I've got my fingers crossed and am cheering him on mightily.
* I'm betting there's 160 or so people who will gladly donate a few tens of millions each out of their pocket change to lobby against such
Re: (Score:2)
And with $12 million, there's a lot of publicity to be bought.
Creative Commons (Score:5, Informative)
Lessig is the guy who helped get Creative Commons off the ground. He actually does stuff. This isn't the same old story.
Re:Creative Commons (Score:5, Informative)
Re:Creative Commons (Score:4, Insightful)
Right. I disagree with him for the most part politically. But his work so far in my eyes has been intelligent, refined and not of the sort I have a lot of distaste in. When he disagrees with something I support, I can generally look at his argument as a refutation of my own as apposed to some ad hominem attack. He has a point, I can think about it and argue against it or support it. I usually still feel I'm right, but it's not like a line from Anne Coulter or Alan Baldwin where I know I'm going to disagree before they even finish the sentence. He's a worthy opponent which is a rare thing in this modern, black and white, low brow political scene.
Re: (Score:1)
Raided? I think they've been here from the beginning.
Made it! (Score:5, Informative)
The counter just tipped over $5M a moment ago. Let's see what Lessig et al. can do with our (mine and 47K other people's) money.
Re: (Score:2)
If he's successful, he'll take tax money from you and 300 million others and give it to candidates running for office.
If he's unsuccessful, you'll be a sucker and we'll all be a lot better off.
Re: (Score:1)
If he's successful, he'll take tax money from you and 300 million others and give it to candidates running for office.
If he's unsuccessful, you'll be a sucker and we'll all be a lot better off.
If a functional democratic system treats every candidate the same way in supporting i. e. financing after a certain popularity threshold is reached, who would that entity be other than an entity of the governing system in place?
As it is currently in the US, it's a hotchpotch of corruption destroying the very foundation of democracy. Can't even guarantee voting integrity across the board when some goons thinking doing the right thing are turning the screws somewhere in secret.
As for your aversion of using ta
Re: (Score:3)
I have no problem with laws *limiting* campaign donations. If Lessig's campaign was aimed at that goal, I might even contribute myself.
But I do have a problem with the government taking my tax money, and giving it to some political candidate so they can buy TV commercials. That is what both of his proposals involve.
Whether or not it *does* come from there does not change the fact that it *should not* co
Re: (Score:1)
I have no problem with laws *limiting* campaign donations
I have - they should be e-liminated, not limited. There will always be backdoors and workarounds.
Think the US Supreme Court with it's corporate-tinted philosophy would support that or the politicians cutting off their funding?
The system is purely money-driven, doubtful if the idea behind MAYDAY-PAC can change that, but worth a try.
http://www.scu.edu/ethics/publ... [scu.edu]
Re: (Score:3)
Ok. Fine. That works too. But you're missing the point.
The issue I have with this entire thing is they want to use *my* tax money to buy ads for politicians I don't support. If they have another solution to the problem that doesn't involve spending my money, well great. But that's not what Lessig is soliciting money for right now. He's soliciting money to (effectively) raise my tax rate, with the additional funds going towards political campaigns.
I also have
Re: (Score:2)
Ok. Fine. That works too. But you're missing the point.
The issue I have with this entire thing is they want to use *my* tax money to buy ads for politicians I don't support.
Your point: Well, that has been tried, reducing tax you pay being used for stuff you don't like - try holding back the % used for war spending if you don't like it and see what happens. Looks like a hassle.
The tax system and government should be trustworthy, apparently they are not. Why is a good question. Not sure who the bigger crooks - corporate or government head-hanchos and who is doing more harm to the greater part of a population?
With Lessing - let's see what happens if he can avoid the ego trip and
Re: (Score:2)
First, your taxes are spent on things you don't agree with. So are mine and everyone else's. You have a right to complain about how that money is spent, but nobody sane advocates a system where your taxes are only spent on things with which you agree.
That said, I'm not convinced that spending tax money to support campaigns is the ideal solution. However, it's perhaps the only solution that is politically viable but could still produce meaningful change. The Supreme Court refuses to put any limits on campaig
Re: (Score:2)
Either fair elections are important to you, or they aren't. The system you propose is the system we have already (by refusing to consider alternatives) and you will note that your proposal has already been tried and found to be unfair.
If you have an alternate proposal for making elections fair, and letting voices be heard, we're all interested. If all you want to do is complain, why should anyone care?
Re: (Score:1)
'fair' is one of those words like 'good' that are really hard to pin down to what is meant when they are used. Let's substitute in another vague word:
Either good elections are important to you, or they aren't. The system you propose is the system we have already (by refusing to consider alternatives) and you will note that your proposal has already been tried and found to be ungood.
There. That didn't add to or change the meaning of what you typed at all.
Re: (Score:2)
There. That didn't add to or change the meaning of what you typed at all.
Horseshit, and also horseshit.
crossed the 5million mark at about 9:30 Eastern. (Score:5, Insightful)
Well Done All Around.
It sickens me that we must "buy back" our democracy.
Re: (Score:3)
Re: (Score:1)
You did read the bits about the fact that voting seems to have no effect most of the time? [davidalbouy.net] (Or how about this one [washingtontimes.com].)
Anecdotal evidence could work here just as well. Citizens United represents everything you need to know about politics in the United States. If you don't have enough money, you don't have enough "free speech." The polls say more than 90% of the country does not want Comcast to buy Time Warner Cable, and for some
Re: (Score:1)
Or what about what happened to Obama's election promises about getting rid of lobbyists and being transparent? I do believe he was pressured by the incumbents into changing his mind. He might have been honest when he first got elected, but, as they say, the system is too strong. He got borged into it.
Or, he was a lying, conniving SOB from the start, and like any other politician said anything he had to to get elected. Our only option is to cut off the air supply (taxes.)
It's all about the power, baby.
Re: (Score:2)
Then you shouldn't have allowed it to be sold in the first place.
The whole thing is still silly, a single person like Bill Gates, Larry Ellison or Steve Job's wife (to pick the popular easy to recognize names) can easily out fund this PAC with nothing more than a signature and a laugh about it ... there are thousands of people who can do it. This PAC is one.
Re: (Score:1)
This isn't an attempt to "buy back" our democracy. It's an attempt by another group of politically-motivated individuals to gain more influence and power in Washington.
From Canada (Score:3)
I am Canadian and actually wanted to pledge for this. :-)
Hope this works out for you guys.
Re: (Score:2)
Considering how the US government screws non-US countries, I would have donated too. Hope it all works out.
Re: (Score:1)
Now, I'm not saying it's going to happen, but sometimes I think this country just needs another civil war against its government. After all, the United States was founded by British colonialists ta
Re: Interesting... (Score:2)
It's also pretty hard to fight back when the other side is so much better armed than you. A bunch of NRA members with assault rifles won't last long against tanks and fighter jets without outside support and the most powerful of the US' enemies are too far away to give any meaningful support and taking that support would immediately lose any popular support you might get.
Too many left wing PACs already (Score:1)
Matching fund source? (Score:1)
Re: (Score:2, Interesting)
I know what they CLAIM to represent, and I know what they represent in their words and deeds.
Most of the ones who I've heard open their mouths are blatant christofascists, historical revisionists, racists, sexists, etc. My assessment that they want to turn us into a "Christian Saudi Arabia" is based on their words and deeds (listen to their talking points, there's a lot of Christian nation, Seven Mountains Mandate and the like talk).
Re: (Score:1)
Most of the ones who I've heard open their mouths are blatant christofascists, historical revisionists, racists, sexists, etc.
This.
I keep hearing the "But, but, that's not really the Tea Party!" nonsense. I tell them the same thing every other group gets told:
These people are operating under your colors. They represent you, whether you like it or not. Don't like it? Do something about it. Or you can play at being the Catholic church, sweep it under the rug, say, "But, but, it's only a comparatively few..." and have everyone make altar boy jokes about you, forever.
Kick the Koch-suckers out of the Tea Party. Or deal with the
Re: (Score:1)
Grassroots campaigns? You mean Koch Industries-driven corporate astroturf?
By the way, I receive SSI disability (because as a result of diagnosed mental issues I am unemployable, and I have effectively no family); furthermore I am under the LGBT umbrella - the Tea Party types have been very vocal in saying that they consider my type to be a waste of oxygen, and wouldn't want my support even if I were willing to give it to them.
Re: (Score:1)
Sorry, I'm Caucasian. :P
Re: (Score:3)
Re: (Score:1)
Re:Not a dime from me (Score:4, Funny)
Is the other group that they're oppressing money?
Re: (Score:2)
Yes, we mustn't suppress Hitler. We have to somehow raise everybody else up.
Re: (Score:3, Insightful)
I just can't support someone whose idea of freedom is allegedly protecting the rights of one group by oppressing another group.
Are you a US citizen? If so, you're likely supporting the current government structure by paying taxes. Just saying.
If you can get similar momentum behind some solution that has a chance of making any difference, and doesn't oppress anyone, go for it.
Re: Not a dime from me (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
There is no group being oppressed here, though I'm starting to think that
Re: (Score:3)
That's the exact problem I have with it. It's an effective tax raise, and what happens to the money raised? It goes to support candidates I might vehemently disagree with. To buy them TV commercials. I find that pretty objectionable.
I have no issue with Lessig's end-goal here, I think it's noble and
Re: (Score:2)
Now how you see that depends on your attitude towards money: the efficient method comes out of taxes (partially paid for by you), while the inefficient method is paid by third parties. In other words
Re: (Score:2)
Does any mention of a candidate in the news come out of the hypothetical $200M?
If not, then the incumbent has an enormous advantage in that he/she can get into the news just by proposing a piece of legislation.
If so, then a news entity can burn through a disliked candidate's share of the $200M by doing a bunch of stories maligning the candidate, leaving no money for positive PR.
Or were you planning on suspending Freedom of the Press for campaigns?
Or did Lessig just forget that news people have political
Re: (Score:2)
Incumbents will always have the publicity advantage - though that also applies to bad publicity. If you think that carpet bombing the public with corporate-funded messages is an appropriate way to counter that, then where's the room for non-corporate messages. Somebody's still got an unfair advantage. Candidates of all stripes are well enough versed in media manipulation to largely counter the encumbent's 'newsworthiness' advantage - though I guess the media (and the public) are slow to pay attention unt
Re: (Score:1)
I'd rather have $50 of my tax money go towards solving corruption and reducing the influence of special interests than whatever wasteful spending is going on now.
Re: (Score:2)
Re: Not a dime from me (Score:2)
yeah, Lessig always correctly identifies the corruption thst results ftom power being for sale, and then he proposes creating more power to solve it, 'cause, honest, it'll be different this time. He and his well-meaning friends will make sure of that.
Re:Screw you, Lawrence (Score:4, Informative)
No matter what you think of Lessig, I think that the experiment in and of itself is interesting.
It's something that hasn't been tried before. If it doesn't work, a bunch of people are out parts of $5mil. If by some miracle it DOES work... well, then what's the use of decrying it?
The only real downside I can see to this PAC is that people who might have put their time/money into some competing and more effective project put it into this one, pinning more hope on the strategy than maybe they should have.
But unless we see it attempted at least once, we won't really know what effect it will have on the political climate.
So go for it, Larry & Gang! I hope it works.
Re: (Score:1)
Oh, and:
$4,738,863
pledged of $5,000,000 goal
11 hours left
time remaining to pledge
Re: (Score:1)
43651
pledges
$4,744,105
pledged of $5,000,000 goal
11 hours left
time remaining to pledge
Interesting... averaging at $100/pledge.
Re: (Score:1)
43986
pledges
$4,762,949
pledged of $5,000,000 goal
11 hours left
You know, they might just do it.
But isn't this only phase 2 of 3? It'll be interesting to see how far that $12mil actually goes.
Re: (Score:1)
And if we meet that goal, we'll get it matched, for a total of $12 million raised.
Re:If you take the bait (Score:4, Insightful)
If you take the bait, and this ends up getting funded, do not be surprised when we replace one "ocracy" with another "ocracy."
That's all this guy is after - putting power in his own court by using the government to oppress people who do not agree with his point of view.
At least Lessig has a track record and is putting his name and reputation to this.
Then again, AC has a track record and , er, oh well.
Re: (Score:2)
If you think the system's broken now, try later when the only people who get to run are those who can cobble together enough votes to get government funding, which is to say, the two main parties as they currently stand.
The only people to even touch on that percentage the past fifty years were Ross Perot, who funded himself (this will be illegal now???) and John Anderson, the libertarian candidate in 1980.
Yes, this will fix the problem...in the sense of entrenching the status quo even more.
Thanks but no tha
Re: If you take the bait (Score:5, Interesting)
Exactly! I refuse it to support Mayday until they stand up for term limits. I asked a question about this in the "Ask Larry about Mayday" story. Then they used a "new and improved format" for his responses and dumped my +5 rated question.
Mayday, if they succeed will give us the same thing we have now, lifetime legislators. Their voucher system will end up a Massive advantage to incumbents.
Re: (Score:2)
Am i the only one who thought the may day was about the soviet style communist celebrations?
I have trouble trusting it on name alone. But you have a good point as well ss many others.
Re: (Score:2)
Am i the only one who thought the may day was about the soviet style communist celebrations?
I have trouble trusting it on name alone. But you have a good point as well ss many others.
You're not the only one who noticed that. The utter cluelessness to start with "May One" and they move to calling it "May Day" is staggering.
Re: (Score:1)
Was it clueless, or was it deliberate?
Mayday, incidentally, should be a strikingly American day on the calendar, as it commemorates the May Day Massacre [nbcchicago.com] which happened in Chicago. The people killed were Communists and Anarchists, though, so it isn't gonna go on the Official Holiday Calendar in the US.
Re: (Score:2)
And so is te swatzstika or however it is spelled. Still, when i see someone walking down the street with one tatoo'd to his forehead, i think charlie manson.
Events more recent tend to carry more weight to peoplr. Saying i'm sruck in the cold war whrn you reference something ancient is a bit odd isn't it?
Re: (Score:3)
Re: (Score:1)
Re: (Score:1)
Re: (Score:1)
If you want to know how well term limits works, you should read up a little on Mexican politics. It's not called the Institutional Party for nothing.
Lessig's position is bullshit. He want to stomp all over the 1st Amendment. Money has no influence of its own. It's people's desire for it, and that is not being addressed.
Re: (Score:1)
Beats the hell out of prohibition. Maybe you should study how well that works also.
Reform to how we fund elections is primary (Score:2)
Your term limit issue is secondary, as are many other issues.
Whether or not we have term limits is a matter of reasoned public debate. Right now, we can't have that due to the money in politics problem.
It is unreasonable for you to connect your issue to the core, systemic problem of how elections are funded.
That is perhaps the biggest misconception and hangup people have. This isn't transactional politics. It's not like you get something in return, or trade-offs get made. We do that now, and the money b
Re: Reform to how we fund elections is primary (Score:2)
Thank you, that is a well thought out and reasoned answer. That's what I was looking for with my question to Lessig.
I can fully understand that term limits may be a "next thing" sort of activity for his PAC. But without an answer to my question, the answer could also be that he doesn't believe that they are important and will eventually be needed.
I really sincerely wanted to know his answer.
Re: (Score:2)
I actually did some minor volunteer work for the Anderson campaign in '80. He ran as an Independent, not as a Libertarian.
Re: (Score:2)
The difference here is that the politicians know that votes are fickle, but money is money.
I just thought of another problem with this though: for money to really speak, it has to at least have the appearance of being a continual stream. That means that once this $12mil warchest is used up, there has to be assurances that there will be ANOTHER war chest lined up to keep supporting things. Otherwise, it's easier to go with the other PAC who wants to keep things as they are, but will only donate $3mil/year.
Re: (Score:1)
That's right. We can't forget the invariable dipping that must come later. I get such pleas in emails from various PACs every single day.
"We've accomplished so much, but we must have your continued support to keep going! Send us even MOAR MONEEZ!"
If it walks like a duck, talks like a duck, and acts like a duck, guess what...
Re:I wish I could do this! (Score:4, Informative)
it has to at least have the appearance of being a continual stream
Yes I think you are right. I, personally, am willing to support the fund year after year. I hope others will too.
Re: (Score:2)
Are you kidding me? It's called the MAYDAY PAC.
MAYDAY, as in, "OMG this is an emergency! You have to do this or people are going to DIE!"
The very name of the thing is designed to elicit an unnecessary sense of urgency and an irrational emotional state in order to extract money.
It's classic self-serving political behavior.
Re: (Score:1)
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/May_Day not http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Mayday
Re: (Score:1)
That's Mayday the event, not the sound of alarm. Mayday is also known as International Workingman's Day.
Don't you remember the old newsreels of Soviet tanks and trucks bearing missiles, rolling through Moscow for the annual Mayday Parade?