Steve Wozniak Endorses Lessig's Mayday Super PAC 209
Funksaw writes: Steve Wozniak, co-found of Apple Computer, has come out to endorse Lawrence Lessig's MAYDAY PAC in an animated audio recording. Mayday.US, (formerly MayOne.US) is Lessig's crowd-funded (citizen-funded!), kick-started Super PAC to end all Super PACs. In the video, Wozniak points out that we're never going to get anywhere on issues important to the Internet community and technology advocates if we don't fix the root cause of corruption. The video can be found at the Mayday PAC's new landing page, "theInternetHasASuperPAC.com."
"The Internet" (Score:4, Insightful)
I seem to have missed the election where everyone on the internet elected Steve Wozniak and Lawrence Lessig to speak for us. The Internet does not have a super pac. A handful of people with a particular view on how the internet should be run have a super pac. To characterize themselves as the only legitimate voice on the matter is the height of arrogance.
Re:"The Internet" (Score:5, Funny)
I seem to have missed the part where everyone on the Internet is a US citizen.
But as a proud resident of Lower Banwidthistan, I am happy to contribute as requested.
Re: (Score:2)
Re:"The Internet" (Score:5, Informative)
Here's the thing though: a lot of people want a lot of changes to happen. Everyone doesn't agree on all of the changes, sure, but a lot of people want to see fundamental changes to our political system, starting with removing the corrupting influence of money. A lot of people want to support something moving in that direction, but what are our options right now? Really, who would you support in order to effect the kind of change that you want to see in politics? What Lessig did was step up and lead. He might not be the leader that everyone wants, but he's actually stepped up to lead an effort. There are a lot of people who want to get behind change in politics, but very few people leading the way. Mayday is a high-profile example with the goal of leading the effort to reform our political system. You don't need to agree 100% with what they say, but if you want to see change then this is a good way to hopefully get that process started. Other groups include things like WOLF-PAC, although it is much less visible. And if you don't like anything out there now, then start your own group and get the word out. Anything to create the kinds of changes that all of us need in order to have our political system work for us instead of the other way around.
Re:"The Internet" (Score:5, Insightful)
starting with removing the corrupting influence of money
I have news for you, the corrupting influence of money will remain AS LONG AS POLITICIANS HAVE POWER. Money will "route around" such "campaign finance reforms". That is why all the campaign finance reforms put in place since the 1970's have consistently achieved nothing (except for allowing incumbents to hold on to power more strongly).
Politicians are always answerable at the ballot box. If you vote for politicians who promise to REMOVE POWER FROM GOVERNMENT, you will REMOVE THE POTENTIAL FOR CORRUPTION.
Most of our "Internet problems" are last mile problems. These are not national problems. You need to show up to your local government meetings and work on last mile access. I suggest local government reduce barriers to entries for new local ISPs (my suggestion). Or perhaps local governments should build open FTTH (which of course would be open to corruption to the contractors who build it, but perhaps that is better). But local is where to deal with this issue.
Re:"The Internet" (Score:5, Insightful)
I have news for you, the corrupting influence of money will remain AS LONG AS POLITICIANS HAVE POWER.
That is true, that's why campaign finance reform is not a magic bullet. Another necessary change is term limits for all of Congress [termlimits.org], so that we can replace career politicians with civilian public servants, as it was meant to be. Legislators and representatives should come out of the private sector to serve their term, and then leave and return to the private sector. We don't need people like Mitch McConnell spending their entire career in politics while they amass a personal fortune of tens of millions of dollars.
Term limits and the revolving door (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
Ideally financial reform would also affect the ability of lobbyists to influence politicians. They could get a job wherever they want, but they wouldn't be able to buy politicians.
There are a lot of changes we need. Changes to campaign financing, lobbying, and term limits are all necessary. Changes to some of those areas might not be very effective without changes to the others.
Re:"The Internet" (Score:5, Insightful)
Another necessary change is term limits for all of Congress
Plenty of states and local governments have implemented term limits. There is NO evidence that this has led to better government. By filling government with inexperienced people, you end up with no institutional memory of past mistakes, and legislators that rely more than ever on the advice and guidance of lobbyists.
Re: (Score:3)
Laws are not set in stone, not even the constitution. If a law gets passed that is ineffective or harmful, it can be repealed. I would rather have decades of non-politician legislators making our laws than another 4 years of the current assholes getting paid by anyone with money to screw over everyone else. It needs to end.
Re: (Score:3)
By filling government with inexperienced people, you end up with no institutional memory of past mistakes, and legislators that rely more than ever on the advice and guidance of lobbyists.
"By filling government with experienced people [incumbents], you end up with no voter memory of past mistakes [because people just keep voting for familiar names, regardless of record], and legislators that rely more than ever on the advice and guidance of lobbyists."
There, FTFY.
Here's the problem with this debate -- the vast majority of the government is filled with more-or-less permanent employees. Underneath almost every executive official or legislator or department head that is elected or appointe
Re: (Score:2)
Another necessary change is term limits for all of Congress [termlimits.org], so that we can replace career politicians with civilian public servants, as it was meant to be.
We can do that now, by voting, and in my awkwardly-worded opinion, improved communication among the masses [slashdot.org] is causing unprecedented changes [slashdot.org] along these lines.
Re: (Score:2)
That is true, that's why campaign finance reform is not a magic bullet. Another necessary change is term limits for all of Congress [termlimits.org], so that we can replace career politicians with civilian public servants, as it was meant to be.
I might agree with you if you also term limited other public officials and even low or mid level bureaucrats. The real power in Washington is the Bureaucracy which can outlast any single administration or any 8 years of Congress. The entrenched interests are not limited to the elected politicians, but all the individuals that make careers out of government money, government contracts and playing the system. It can take years or decades to fathom just part of the Federal Bureaucracy, let alone be in a pos
Re: (Score:2)
That all may be true, or it may not. Taking power away from the fed means that that vacant space is going to:
1. State / local governments
2. Organized groups with special interests
3. The populace
Odds are #3 will have exactly as much say as they've always had, and there's more money to be had be groups 1/2 if the fed shrivles up. My opinion is that if you want power, you need to trade it off with harsh real panalties for violating the trust put upon you. The problem is the people with
Re: (Score:2)
The problem is the people with the most to lose from the scheme are the only ones who have the power to enact it (barring armed revolt).
How so? Three-fourths of the states can amend the Constitution with no help from the Congress.
Re: (Score:2)
Can you get 3/4's of the politicians from the states to enact such legislation?
They are also benefiting from this arrangement, so, I don't think it will fly.
Re: (Score:2)
I wanted to add something about the solution through local politics. That is an important step. We the people have the right and ability to change the federal government through constitutional amendments. We can restrict Congress ourselves by using an Article V convention of the states [wikipedia.org]. We can ratify an amendment starting at the state level in order to effect the kind of change that Congress would not make on their own. Instead of counting on Congress to limit their own power, we can do it for them.
Re: (Score:2)
Get started.
Re: (Score:2)
Indeed [wolf-pac.com]. Several states have already approved their applications for a convention. We need 34 states to approve them and start the convention.
Re: (Score:2)
How can people help?
Re: (Score:2)
Wolf-PAC has a petition on their site, plus this page [wolf-pac.com] with information about volunteering or donating. Volunteering would include actually meeting with local legislators to pitch the case for a convention and try and get a local resolution passed supporting it, so that eventually the state would approve its application for the convention.
The Convention Of States [conventionofstates.com] project is also actively seeking a convention. At least 3 states so far have approved their applications.
Re: (Score:2)
More importantly, it isn't an attempt to get MONEY out of politics, it is an attempt to get non-establishment MEDIA money out of politics.
All this does is turn politics back over to Time Warner, Fox, Disney, etc, who own the news stations and papers, and out of the hands of the People.
No thanks.
"We don't want your money in politics... but would you like to buy our news station?"
Re: (Score:2)
Campaign finance laws demonstrably have not achieved nothing, or the monied persons would not have bothered to weaken these laws, and would not be seeking to weaken them further.
Politicians are patently not answerable at the ballot box, by and large, or so many unpopular bits of legislation would not be passing.
If you remove too much power from the government, you will create a power vacuum. Someone will step in and fill it. Warlord or (maybe even well meaning) revolutionary. The government needs to be a
Re: (Score:2)
If power is removed from government, some other entities will gain that power and become the new evil that must be fought. Most of these fights aren't about removing power, but in taking power or moving it around. Ie, diminish government's power in order to increase corporate power, which may be a bigger problem due to lack of accountability to citizens.
Re: (Score:2)
So, you're going to get rid of the corrupting influence of money by...spending money to buy politicians?
That's what PACs do, you know - they buy politicians to counter the other guy's bought politicians....
Re: (Score:2)
That's right, Mayday's goal is to fund and elect politicians committed to campaign finance reform. The way our political system is set up is that the politicians with the most money get elected, so if we are going to change anything, including campaign finance laws, we need to buy the politicians to do it (or pass a constitutional amendment via an Article V convention).
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
"Campaign finance reform" in the past included things like Citizens United, which directly contributes to the problems we have now. The current brand of reform is aimed at getting rid of things like that. We are trying to correct the problems that were made in the past.
And I don't know if it will work, but I want to try. One thing that I am not willing to do is to sit here and do nothing, expecting that other people are going to fix the problem.
Re: (Score:2)
Don't forget that Citizen's United was ultimately about whether you need the government's permission to make a movie about a politician. Do you really want the government deciding what movies we're allowed to see? I also notice people screaming about Campaign Finance Reform are never demanding regulation for, say, Michael Moore or Jon Stewart. How come it's okay for Miramax and Viacom to pollute politics with their corrupting corporate money?
Re: (Score:2)
Do you really want the government deciding what movies we're allowed to see?
That would not be constitutional, I'm not worried about that.
How come it's okay for Miramax and Viacom to pollute politics with their corrupting corporate money?
It's not.
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
Citizens United was a case where the Supreme Court found that the last "campaign finance reform" law over-reached and violated the Constitution.
And you would disagree if I said that Citizens United brought that case against the FEC because Citizens United wanted to reform the campaign finance rules?
Re: (Score:2)
The way our political system is set up is that the politicians with the most money get elected
Eric Cantor had WAY more money than David Brat. Meg Whitman spent more on her campaign than any other non-presidential candidate. She lost. Money certainly helps, but plenty of elections are won by the less well funded candidate. It is difficult to precisely determine the influence of money on elections, because not only does the money help the candidate get the message out, but donors looking for influence are more likely to donate to someone that was already popular.
Re: (Score:2)
Yeah, I made a blanket statement that isn't true 100% of the time. It sounds like Cantor's base didn't think he was representing them anymore. I'd love to see the results of that election happen nationwide, frankly I'd love to see every single incumbent lose.
Re: (Score:2)
If the large pocketed donors are looking for influence and continue to donate they are either insane or effective.
Neither sounds like a good reason to continue a bad habit.
All people, wealthy and poor should have equal redress to their government.
Right now, the wealthy, effectively, are the only ones who have much say.
Re: (Score:2)
Ironically, she was too well known to win in California. To be precise, most Californians had actually used eBay by the time she ran, and nobody wanted someone who could create that kind of train wreck to be in charge of the entire state. :-)
Re: (Score:2)
Sometimes you have to fight fire with fire. Just because you have to work within the current system doesn't mean you can't work to change it.
Fight fire with? [Re:"The Internet"] (Score:2)
Sometimes you have to fight fire with fire...
But actually, most of the time, it makes more sense to fight fire with water.
Re: (Score:2)
Yes, but sometimes, firemen, in a brush fire, will set fire to burnable things in the path of the fire in a controlled way as a fire break.
Votes not money controls politicians ... (Score:2)
Here's the thing though: a lot of people want a lot of changes to happen. Everyone doesn't agree on all of the changes, sure, but a lot of people want to see fundamental changes to our political system, starting with removing the corrupting influence of money. A lot of people want to support something moving in that direction, but what are our options right now?
Money is not the problem. The problem is apathetic voters who are OK with the status quo. Money does not control politicians, votes do. Money is just a tool to influence voters who don't really care one way or the other.
A member of the 1% has 1 vote, the same as a member of the 99%.
If a voter cares about an issue no amount of PAC money, no amount spent on media campaigns, is going to change their position.
Two of the most power political lobbies the US, the NRA and the AARP, have the attention of po
Party Loyalty is Political Apathy ... (Score:2)
If you are loyal to your party then you are irrelevant. Your party can ignore you because they have your vote, the other party can ignore you because they can not obtain your vote.
The people who control the outcomes of elections in the US, and those to whom the politicians show some responsiveness, are those who vote for candidates and not political parties.
Belong to whatever party you want, whatev
We're talking change, not winning elections ... (Score:2)
Obama got less votes in 2012 than McCain did in 2008. Had Romney gotten all of those "for granted" votes he would have easily won. Romney won the independents by 20%. By your claim, Romney easily beat Obama by courting those in-between voters, but to your surprise Obama is still in the White House. So, you are basically wrong, period.
No, your analysis is completely flawed. The Democrats simply had better party loyalty than the Republicans that year. Party loyalty is not some fixed percentage over time nor are the number of loyal voters equal between the parties.
Your analysis is also complete off topic. You are arguing how to win elections. I am arguing how to effect change in politicians. Those are two very different things.
If anything that election proves my point. The Republican Party analyzes the results and pays attention to t
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
A handful of people with a particular view on how the internet should be run have a super pac.
That completely misses the point of what the super pac is for, which is campaign finance reform. That's it. Nothing else. What I think Woz is saying is that any intelligent political debate about the internet and technology policies can't happen in the current political system, and campaign finance reform is the best bet at changing that system.
Re: (Score:2)
To characterize themselves as the only legitimate voice on the matter is the height of arrogance.
They didn't, and they're not. It's an ADVERTISEMENT.
Things need to be simplified in an advertisement to get the general point across. It's up to you to not jump to idiotic conclusions and go out and do research on your own.
If you want to be pedantic, go do it somewhere else.
This is an important issue, and we all need to speak as one.
If you don't want to join the chorus, then get the hell out.
If I'm trying to perform CPR, I don't need some asshole (you) standing behind me telling me I'm doing it wrong, I'm n
Re: (Score:2)
The lack of self-awareness here is hilarious. You deny they're claiming to be the only legitimate voice for the internet followed immediately by multiple demands that anyone who disagrees "get the hell out" because you're the only legitimate voice for the internet.
We don't all need to speak as one. YOU need us all to speak as one because then you don't actually have to convince people your view point is right.
Re: (Score:2)
I seem to have missed the election where everyone on the internet elected Steve Wozniak and Lawrence Lessig to speak for us. The Internet does not have a super pac. A handful of people with a particular view on how the internet should be run have a super pac. To characterize themselves as the only legitimate voice on the matter is the height of arrogance.
Not just that. I've been saying for a long time that Lessig's idea may be a short-term boon but a long-term disaster. Why? Because he thinks "the problem" is that corporations have too much "money influence" on government, and the people too little.
I have argued with him that the problem is NOT that "corporations influence with too much money, and the people too little"... the real problem, the underlying problem, is big money in politics, period.
By giving money to "peoples' voices", he may be helping
Re: (Score:3)
Keep in mind that Lessig also thought Obama was "The Answer", and fought hard for his election.
To be fair, a lot of people did. I voted for him the first time because he claimed that he was going to repeal the Patriot Act and close Guantanamo Bay. He did neither of those, so I didn't vote for him again, and a lot of people felt the same way. Obama had around 5 million more votes in 2008 than he did in 2012.
Funding options: (Score:2)
Their FAQ states: "In 2014, our objective is to win seats on the basis of reform, and to show that we can win seats on the basis of reform. We don’t see any independent candidates on the federal level who could win this election cycle. Spending our donors money to support independent candidates doesn’t advance our objective."
Whoa whoa whoa... what? Supporting candidates who
Re: (Score:3)
Supporting a candidate who will not get elected anyway will not advance their objective.
Re: (Score:2)
Spoken like a true Win^H^H^H Loser
I think the word you are looking for is "pragmatist".
Re: (Score:2)
Here, take my money! </sarcasm>
Re: (Score:3)
McDonalds had pizza. http://money.ca.msn.com/saving... [msn.com]
Nothing new to see here. (Score:4, Informative)
Re:Nothing new to see here. (Score:5, Insightful)
Thanks. I understand and appreciate where you are coming from.
As a founder of the EFF, I do stand up for the small consumers vs. the wealthy and powerful. There is no perfect solution.
Re: (Score:3)
Thanks for supporting Mayday, there isn't a whole lot of time left but it looks like around $300,000 more has been contributed since yesterday. I hope the momentum can continue.
Re: (Score:2)
I certainly appreciate this venture. While I disagree with the idea of SuperPAC's and wish campaign finance reform did not take a political backseat...this is fighting fire with fire. Thank you.
Re:Nothing new to see here. (Score:5, Interesting)
Correct. Plus if campaign finance reform is achieved and campaign speech becomes subject to severe limits, then incumbents will hold a massive and largely unassailable power to dominate campaigns over newcomers.
And with incumbency being a root cause to many of the problems in Washington, I won't support this PAC either until they make term limits a core part of the reforms they are calling for.
Re: (Score:3)
That's an easy one too. Set caps on campaign spending or set limits on the amount of TV/radio based ad time that can be spent on a campaigner. That would very quickly set a more balanced playing field for having people over the top bombarded with the message. It still allows for street signs, internet bombardment, etc.. but those are also generally grass roots in nature, so it may actually benefit people getting elected where they may not have been recognized prior.
Re: (Score:2)
So, you advocate censoring the newspapers, TV news, etc? Because there's nothing to stop an incumbent from getting publicity during an electoral cycle just by doing his job and making the news.
Note that ALL spending limits favor the incumbent. HE/SHE has easy access to all sorts of free publicity (propose a popular bill to get free publicity, for instance) that the challenger can't match.
Re: (Score:2)
Why the jump from spending caps to censoring?
Can you see that no spending caps is much more "censoring", for a much larger group of people?
Re: (Score:2)
Actually, there is, and it is enshrined in communications law, but thirty years of weak, ineffectual FCC commissioners has mostly gutted it, between the removal of the fairness doctrine in 1987 and the consistent failure to enforce the equal time rule....
Re:Nothing new to see here. (Score:5, Informative)
Because ordinary people have so much say today in elections, don't we?
Here is the reality [usnews.com]: 196 people contributed 80% of super PAC contributions in the 2012 election cycle. Your grass-roots efforts are pretty meaningless when they can only raise a quarter of the financial influence of 196 people. The goal of campaign finance reform is to level that playing field, so that the opinions of ordinary people are weighted more against the opinions of the super wealthy. Sheldon Adelson does not deserve to have a larger say in who gets elected than I do, it doesn't matter how much money he has.
"I'm against very wealthy people attempting to or influencing elections... But as long as it's doable I'm going to do it."
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
Partisans always exempt themselves. (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
Bah. You're assuming that money is the same as speech.
Money is an amplifier for a given person's speech, so a given person can buy a bullhorn & hang out down at the street corner, or by ads on hundreds of TV channels.
So what we have instead of 'limiting' the speech of others is the ability for those with the most money to be able to drown out all other voices until only theirs is heard....
So, what you're saying is, anybody can speak, but money gives people the ability to be heard.
Re: (Score:2)
Suppose congress passed a law saying that, while abortions are completely legal, no one may accept payment for performing an abortion nor spend any money on supplies, personell, etc. to be able to provide one.
Would you not consider that a severe restriction on the ability to get an abortion? Would it be fair to characterize thep osition of people opposing such a law as "ha, ha, they thinks money is an abortion!"
Re:Nothing new to see here. (Score:4, Informative)
Sorry, but that's etymologically incorrect. Mayday (with no space) is derived from French "m'aidez", meaning "Help me". It is an internationally recognized distress call that dates back almost a hundred years. The fact that socialists latched onto the preexisting "May Day" holiday (which dates back thousands of years) and turned it into the Eurasian equivalent of Labor Day results in an unfortunate name collision.
Comment removed (Score:5, Insightful)
Re: (Score:2)
You are absolutely right about the way Super PACs work. Real change comes only from a concerted, long-term effort. Campaign finance reform is going to be a very hard sell, not just because of entrenched interests but also because it's easier to get people to agree to "something should be done" than "let us do this particular thing". It will take a steady, well-thought out effort.
I'm slightly less cynical about the ability to get media. The media sell air space, and they don't much care to whom they sell it.
PAC defined (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
Apparently yes. I went to their site, read the FAQ, and still have no particularly lucid idea of what a Super PAC might be, let alone a PAC. Perhaps I should look it up on Wikipedia, but I wonder whether the founders of this campaign do not overestimate the general political education level of their fellow compatriots.
Anyway, it seems to have something to do with buying politicians, which apparently is legal in the US.
Thank goodness for Citizens United (Score:3, Funny)
Re: (Score:2)
Super PACs predated Citizen's United by some time; it's just that the term wasn't coined until then. People had been doing it for a while, including the group after which the decision is named. CU just made it legally certain and thus increased its popularity.
They're missing the root cause of the root cause (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
Because the law of conservation of power shows that taking power away from the government won't make the power disappear, it will just end up directly in the hands of the rich.
And that's different from the way it is now? Majority In Congress Are Millionaires [npr.org]
And then when we elect that politician... (Score:2)
"Cast it into the fire! Destroy it!"
"No."
And he kept the corrupt political system of big money. It should have ended that day, but evil was allowed to endure. There's no strength left in the world of Men. They're scattered, divided, leaderless.
This will stop nothing (Score:2)
Sorry to be so cynical of what know are noble goals, but how exactly is being complicit in the very cause of political corruption supposed to end political corruption?
The extraction of wealth through massive and long-term fraud, the extreme deterioration of the middle class and degree of political corruption with impunity has become so immense in the last few decades... makes this effort a laughable piss-ant by comparison. Incredibly powerful interests with huge political influence will end this by snappin
Fix political corruption for $5 mil? (Score:2)
MayOne/Mayday donor, checking in (Score:5, Insightful)
I contributed to the first round that raised $1 million, and I contributed to the ongoing second round that is trying (with less success) to raise $5 million.
Please contribute if you can. As Lawrence said in his TED talk: your favorite issue may be the more important thing to fix, but this has to be the FIRST thing we fix. There can be no meaningful reform as long as the big money has the only voice in politics.
I understand how silly it sounds. Fight money in politics by raising money? How could that ever work? But just remember that we have to get our foot in the door somehow. We need the same lobbyists to get through to the people who need to hear us.
Lawrence is a good guy, a smart person, and incredibly passionate about his cause. He's someone we can get behind. Please donate if you can. Remember they don't take your money unless they make their goal.
Net neutrality, patent reform, etc. They all start here
Re: (Score:3)
I understand how silly it sounds. Fight money in politics by raising money? How could that ever work?
I have heard folks say that, or other such noise about it being "hypocritical", but frankly that attitude is beyond stupid.
Politics is like a game of Great Dalmudi [wikipedia.org]. If you hate the current rules, you can change them, but you have to win a hand using those sucky rules first. Refusing to utilize a rule you don't like is not just counter-productive, but actively stupid.
Perfect vs the Good (Score:4, Insightful)
Until politicians stop being bought by the highest bidder, there can be no political progress in this country. While not everyone may agree with Lessig representing them, you may want to take some time to research the terrific things he's done as lawyer for the EFF.
For example, many /. may dislike the "unlimited copyright" rule where companies essentially own a copyright forever. Lessig fought the good fight in the Supreme Court [wikipedia.org].
Unless politicians represent actual people and not the Supreme Court's idea of people, corruption won't end in our political process.
Amazing that politicians can take donations (Score:3)
It is amazing to me that politicians can take money from people and businesses with the expectation of favors in return.
This is perfectly legal. It is nothing but legalized bribery.
From a recent article on a court case which further loosened campaign finance restrictions: "For the donors, they really prefer to cut the vast number of checks,” he said. “For them, it’s not about giving money, it’s about building a relationship. You’re not going to get any face time, they’re not going to hear your story.” Individual donors want to feel gratitude from the candidate — legal, “completely non-corrupting gratitude,” Backer hastened to note." [opensecrets.org]
Politicians shake down big donors. Big donors try to influence politicians. It's a symbiotic relationship. What's lost are the interests of the populace. Granted, those interests can be varied, in direct conflict and not monolithic. But the politician's incentives - while always self centered of course, they're only people - should be more aligned with the public interest rather than merely with the interest of a few large donors.
Re: Well, this certainly should kill PAC corruptio (Score:5, Insightful)
You seem to be under the impression that the only solution worth pursing is one that will solve everything all at once forever. I, however, will gladly fight on some more, forever and take my victories where I can get them.
As they say, 'perfectionism is the enemy of progress.'
Major source of corruption is Tax Code not PACs (Score:5, Insightful)
But then what will they call the new things that secretly do the same damn thing and spring up in their place? Shouldn't we have a catchier label ready now?
To get rid of the major source of political corruption in the U.S. we need to rewrite the tax codes. The U.S. Tax Code is probably the biggest vehicle by which U.S. politicians reward their friends and interfere with their enemies.
... A rate is defined, you pay exactly that rate. Obviously these rates would be much lower than they currently are, however they can be designed using the average effective rates paid so that there is no revenue loss for the government.
No credits, no deductions,
Re:Major source of corruption is Tax Code not PACs (Score:5, Insightful)
To get rid of the major source of political corruption in the U.S. we need to rewrite the tax codes.
In order for "we" to rewrite the tax codes, better people need to be elected to Congress and state legislatures. Today, to a great extent, that means PACs, because PACs raise the money for campaigns that make the difference between someone wanting to get elected and someone having a real chance of getting elected.
The weak link of democracy is... democracy. First, the voting public needs to know who you are, and second, the voting public needs to get off their asses and vote. Seriously. There's a mid-term election coming up... pay attention to the turn-out.
"We" will continue to elect puppets and pawns, owned by and obligated to the "secret" donors to the PACs (and who will continue to twist the tax code for their benefit), until "we" start coming out in sufficient numbers and elect other people, and thus embarrass all the "secret" donors who sent money to the PACs but got no return on their "investment".
Re: (Score:3)
Re: (Score:3)
It would be like the draft in the sense that you lose your business or job and maybe family due to taking 2 years off. Otherwise it would be the opposite of the draft as instead of potentially going to your death, you'd be going to the land of hookers, blow and nice paid holidays in tropical resorts with a nice guaranteed well paying job that doesn't involve work after your 2 years. Just have to vote the right way and when doing blow and getting blown you will go OK.
Re:Major source of corruption is Tax Code not PACs (Score:5, Informative)
Re:Major source of corruption is Tax Code not PACs (Score:5, Insightful)
So what you're saying is that it's unfair to accomplish what you consider to be proper policy objectives of taxation using a tax code with one free parameter.
Fine, then. Make it two free parameters: a common one is "your tax is X% of your income minus Y". The point is that every free parameter in the tax code is an opportunity for corruption, and currently we have about eleventy billion.
You write:
The problem is that so long as politicians are able to build in favors, they will. If you rely on the honor of politicians to prevent corruption you're doomed.
If you have the X%+Y tax system outlined above, there are no special favors; for a given revenue level there is in fact only one degree of freedom, and then it's just the standard rich-vs-poor fight, which is far less vulnerable to capture by special interests than our current behemoth.
Re: (Score:3)
Obviously, you could say the same thing for any well defined tax curve, more progressive ones as well. It doesn't have to be X%+Y. What you're really saying is that you want all incomes to be treated the same way, and that there should be no deductions.
The reality isn't going to be that simple; for starters you need to define income in some way that is both fair and can't be evaded easily. And if you are too strict about everything being level, you have lost a whole range of financial instruments that are s
Re: (Score:2)
The "flat tax" idea is seductive in it's simplicity, but extremely unfair in actual practice.
I did not say a "flat tax", I said "A rate is defined". That rate may be a function of income, i.e. progressive.
For those living at the lowest income levels, n% is a meaningful bite out of their income.
That is a bit of a red herring. Most of the serious flat tax advocates agree it should phase in at the poverty line, so it does have a progressive nature near the poverty line and would only be flat at some point above the poverty line.
As you climb above those levels, n% approaches pocket change.
That is mathematical nonsense. 15% of 100 thousand is 15 thousand. 15% of 100 million is 15 million.
This "pocket change" notion is nonsense. The wealthy would no
Re: (Score:2)
Re: Major source of corruption is Tax Code not PAC (Score:2)
In other words, go after my IRA.
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:3)
It also nails people on things like medical deductions, double taxed state taxes, etc.
That is a red herring. Most serious flat tax proposals are not literally flat. They phase in at the poverty line, the tax doesn't truly become "flat" until some point well above the poverty line. With the Affordable Health Care Act out-of-pocket medical costs are capped. and if the federal government goes flat presumably the states could as well, etc. The voter driven movement pushing along the "flat" tax would effect both federal and state levels of government.
The saner thing is to nuke long term cap gains. If you realize income, tax it as income, doesn't matter where it came from.
That is what a "flat" tax would do.
Government money corrupts, not just PAC money (Score:2)
The problem to me seems that regular folks don't seem to understand or care (or think they can do anything about) creating a system of government where the rule of law prevails instead of the rule of committees, boards and commissions. There is a difference between the rule of law with people executing that law and a law that simply abdicates to the discretion of men and the corrupting influence that it has.
Re: (Score:2)
The problem to me seems that regular folks don't seem to understand or care (or think they can do anything about) creating a system of government where the rule of law prevails instead of the rule of committees, boards and commissions. There is a difference between the rule of law with people executing that law and a law that simply abdicates to the discretion of men and the corrupting influence that it has.
They can do something about it. They can vote out politicians who are not serving the interests of the people. The people must however be willing to vote punitively, to vote against their political party, until politicians learn that they must serve the interests of the people first. Such a darwinian process will change the behavior of politicians. Above all else, politicians want their jobs, they will do what is necessary to keep them.
Votes are the true currency of politics and a 99%'er has the same vot
Re: (Score:2)
PAC stands for Political Action Committee. They were created to get around certain aspects of campaign finance law, specifically regarding how much could be donated to a candidate by individuals or companies (restrictions that no longer exist due to Citizens United). The idea was that instead of donating directly to the candidate (and being restricted as to how much you could give) you could donate a much larger amount of money to a PAC, who would then do things like take out ads, pay for infrastructure (ca