Mayday PAC Goes 2 For 8 224
An anonymous reader writes: Lawrence Lessig's Mayday.us project had a bold goal: create a super PAC to end all super PACs. It generated significant support and raised over $10 million, which it spent endorsing a group of candidates for the recent mid-term elections and the primaries beforehand. The results weren't kind. Only two of the eight candidates backed by Mayday won their elections, and both of those candidates were quite likely to win anyway. Lessig was understandably displeased with the results. In a post on the Mayday site, he said, "What 2014 shows most clearly is the power of partisanship in our elections. Whatever else voters wanted, they wanted first their team to win."
Kenneth Vogel, author of Big Money, a recent book on the rise of super PACs, was critical of of Mayday's efforts, saying, "While voters do express high levels of disgust about the state of campaign finance and the level of corruption in Washington, they tend to actually cast votes more on bread-and-butter economic issues." Still, Lessig is hopeful for the future: "We moved voters on the basis of that message. Not enough. Not cheaply enough. But they moved."
Kenneth Vogel, author of Big Money, a recent book on the rise of super PACs, was critical of of Mayday's efforts, saying, "While voters do express high levels of disgust about the state of campaign finance and the level of corruption in Washington, they tend to actually cast votes more on bread-and-butter economic issues." Still, Lessig is hopeful for the future: "We moved voters on the basis of that message. Not enough. Not cheaply enough. But they moved."
Nothing's gonna change. (Score:4, Insightful)
The results weren't kind. Only two of the eight candidates backed by Mayday won their elections, and both of those candidates were quite likely to win anyway. "Whatever else voters wanted, they wanted first their team to win."
Well, duh! Most people don't want to switch because that would mean they were wrong before.
"We moved voters on the basis of that message. Not enough. Not cheaply enough. But they moved."
Not really ...
Until you get proportional representation (which actually gives 3rd parties a chance) it's going to be "Partisanship For The Win!"
Re:Nothing's gonna change. (Score:5, Insightful)
Here, even the Democrats voted Republican. Our Democrats were clearly too far left for the red state this is.
We put back in a Governor that few actually like, because the Dem was a known tax and spend 'crat. We got rid of one of those last election, stupid Sebilius wound up running the Omamacare website. Dumb, right? Put a fuck-up in charge of a mission critical task. Typical Obama.
We put a lazy absentee senator (Pat Roberts) back in because the Democrats dropped out of the race to support an "independent" that out 'cratted the Democrats, bobbled his head when he talked and avoided taking a stand on any issue that might show him to be a Democrat in disguise. Honestly, he must've thought the state were simple peasant rubes.
Politics here aren't as complicated as the babbling heads would have you think. No special situation or formula at work here. Libertarians took 2-4% of the vote wherever they appeared.
Mostly the Repubs just had to show up and give the usual, "no new taxes, no gay marriage, no illegal immigrants, No Obamacare, keep your guns, keep your money,keep your dignity" and they were in like they were covered in KY Jelly. The Dems just did the usual "We can raise a tax to fix this, we can be stylishly modern on social issues, we'll do it for the kids, we'll save the Illegal Aliens, we'll impose the latest greatest socialist philosophies and turn your state into a hippy heaven.
This is Kansas. We even re-elected Chris Kobach, who penned the infamous Arizona immigration law as well as ours. Democrats have fucked Kansas every time they accidentally get elected. No miracles here. This is a red state and going to stay that way, because of that. But on the bright side we can have Kansas made clips for our guns with any amount of bullets, assault rifles, short shotguns and marijuana is still illegal, untaxed and cheap. GO CHIEFS!
Re: (Score:3)
... But on the bright side we can have Kansas made clips for our guns with any amount of bullets, assault rifles, short shotguns and marijuana is still illegal, untaxed and cheap.
I lost it on those last three words. Good post.
Re: (Score:2)
he must've thought the state were simple peasant rubes.
You seem to be agreeing with his assessment.
Re:Nothing's gonna change. (Score:5, Informative)
Democrats have fucked Kansas every time they accidentally get elected. No miracles here. This is a red state and going to stay that way, because of that.
You think that's why Brownback got re-elected as governor? If your analysis were even remotely correct, he would have had absolutely no chance at winning on Tuesday: he's led your state [washingtonpost.com] to huge upcoming budget deficits, an increased poverty rate, much lower economic growth than all four neighboring states, and a downgraded state credit rating.
Yet, despite all of the above, Brownback still kept his job, because, you know... "liberals and taxes are bad." Never mind if the alternative is flushing your state down the toilet.
Re: (Score:2)
Unfortunately , at the half, Buffalo is ahead of K.C. 10 - 3.
A few touchdowns would be right for Kansas.
The rest we have something of a chance of obtaining now.
Re: (Score:3, Insightful)
Well, duh! Most people don't want to switch because that would mean they were wrong before.
Either that or money doesn't buy votes as much as some believe it does. We've already seen numerous times where throwing a lot of money after a particular cause still causes it to lose anyways. Like the Colorado recall elections where the incumbents raised some 11 times what the opposition raised, yet they still lost, some of them by a landslide.
I mean the two that Lessig's camp won...how easy would it be to argue that Lessig's camp CAUSED them to win?
Re: (Score:2)
I mean the two that Lessig's camp won...how easy would it be to argue that Lessig's camp CAUSED them to win?
I thought they were pretty safe incumbents, so I don't think Lessig mattered much there.
Re: (Score:2)
I thought they were pretty safe incumbents, so I don't think Lessig mattered much there.
Correct, but my point is that this is often the case anyways. It could just be that the more popular candidate is able to draw funds easier. It probably follows that they're likely to win anyways, even without huge funding dollars.
Though what I just said was a bit of an oversimplification, and doesn't explain one other point I made, so I'll expand on that. For example in the Colorado recall election, the incumbents were more popular with out of state interests, but those out of state interests couldn't vote
Re: (Score:2)
Either that or money doesn't buy votes as much as some believe it does.
Big-spending campaigns probably give voters the impression that the candidate is already "plugged into the system" and is not really going to represent the average voter. Look at what happened with Palin once she went credit-card-crazy buying fancy outfits for herself and her family.
Plus, if you're spending all that money, people who would have voted for you figure you'll be a shoe-in, so they don't go and vote.
And of course, if you can't "buy" all that fancy advertising, you have to get out your ground
Re: (Score:3)
Re: (Score:3)
the future of our nation is at stake
When is it ever NOT at stake?
Re: (Score:2)
Oh and BTW:
Proctor and Gamble spends about $5 billion a year advertising for the likes of laundry detergent, Nyquil, and diapers.
Proctor and gamble needs to advertise 24/7/365. Politicians don't.
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
That's because money is not the issue. Psychology is. Money is just the scapegoat to avoid addressing that. We don't want people realizing that they are responsible for the people they elect. So, let's blame the 'system'. There are few buckets in this world that contain more crap.
The true currency of politics is votes not money (Score:2)
Well, duh! Most people don't want to switch because that would mean they were wrong before.
Either that or money doesn't buy votes as much as some believe it does.
Absolutely correct. The true currency of politics is votes not money. Its still a one person one vote system, not a one dollar one vote system. The 99% actually have the power, they just fail to use it.
Money is just a tool to persuade the indifferent voters and money's influence is magnified by party loyalty. If you are loyal to your party you are irrelevant. Your party can ignore you because they have your vote, the other party can ignore you because they can not get your vote.
There is a simple way f
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
This is true, but the whole reason the NRA and AARP are effective is that they have large numbers of people who will actually show up and ruin political careers over one vote in Congress. You have to have enormous unanimity in your organization to make it work. What's the single "99%" issue that you think you can make millions of people take that kind of stand?
An elected official egregiously voting against the interests of the people, of demonstrating a far greater loyalty to campaign contributions than to votes. The point being to punish those politicians who consider voters secondary to donors, and to tolerate politicians who consider donors secondary to voters. Ie to remind politicians where the true power lies. And "tolerate" doesn't necessarily mean voting for, it simply means returning to voting on a politician's stance on issues when neither candidate warr
Re: (Score:2)
You did have one good idea, proportional representation. This way, your not really voting against anyone, because if a ticket is split three ways, especailly if the top two canidates have similar ideas, a third, unpopular canidate is not represen
Bread-and-butter brainwashed (Score:2)
"While voters do express high levels of disgust about the state of campaign finance and the level of corruption in Washington, they tend to actually cast votes more on bread-and-butter economic issues."
But voters are easily convinced that if their freedom to form a corporate monopoly is central to their own economic future. I know a guy who drives a school bus and is worried sick about the estate tax.
Re: (Score:3)
Unless it's upwards of $5.3M in value, the estate doesn't even need to file.
I think he'll be okay.
Re: (Score:2)
Not having to file or pay taxes on a large sum of money is likely good cause
Ooops, this is where I stopped reading.
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:3, Insightful)
Why should he not worry? He is working hard to earn that money if he is thinking about leaving it as a legacy for his children to enjoy that should be his choice. What difference does it matter if its $5 or $5 million, or hell $5 billion.
Its money he "made" and paid taxes on along the way already, none should have any claim on it, its disposition should be his discretion and his alone, the amount isn't important its a basic matter of principle.
Re: (Score:2)
I hope your not one of those people who likes to talk about poor people demanding handouts?
Re:Bread-and-butter brainwashed (Score:5, Insightful)
He is working hard to earn that money if he is thinking about leaving it as a legacy for his children to enjoy that should be his choice. What difference does it matter if its $5 or $5 million, or hell $5 billion.
Capitalism. (Score:5, Funny)
The government is just another business, and people will want to buy pieces of it.
You can't put a band-aid over an asshole to stop the spread of shit. It's a problem inherent to the system.
Re:Capitalism. (Score:4, Funny)
Re: (Score:3)
If we wanted a system that took the best aspects of capitalism, you'd let the states compete to see who can do the best job to win th
Re: (Score:2)
no, we'd just have more of the same.
companies succeede when they recruit great workers. Once they get big enough, the bosses get arrogant, and fool themselves into beleiving their own propaganda about that they themselves built the company, and any worker could accomplish the work at hand. Once this happens, its a slow down hill.
Capit
Re: (Score:2)
Truth is, There are very few businesses that have lasted as long as the US government. Most don't make it 100 years. Most don't have the faintest idea what keeps them in business, or how they got to where they are, especially after a few generations of founding, and all the original talent has gone, and then fail w
$10M isn't even a good start anymore (Score:5, Insightful)
If Citizens United sought to disenfranchise voters as much as possible from the election process, they will accomplish it once that election is over and voters feel that their money can no longer help out in any meaningful way.
Re: (Score:2)
If Citizens United sought to disenfranchise voters as much as possible from the election process...
Citizens United is a group (of citizens, who are also presumably voters) that runs ads to convince voters to vote for candidates that support specific policies. Citizens United is effective because people have the franchise.
If we lived in a horrible dictatorship where there was one party rule, and being a member of the other party was a crime (think North Korea or the old Soviet Union or something), running ads saying "Vote against the guy in power" wouldn't work.
Re: $10M isn't even a good start anymore (Score:2, Insightful)
No, Citizens United was a front group. It used the whole group of citizens argument as an excuse to push their agenda through, which was to open the door for unfettered corporate spending.
I have yet to see any credible evidence that citizens were ever denied participation in the political process. Corporations on the other hand, were unable to use their outsized budgets to buy influence. That is what this case was all about, and attempts to dress it up as anything else is just more astroturfing.
Re: (Score:2)
No, Citizens United was a front group. It used the whole group of citizens argument as an excuse to push their agenda through, which was to open the door for unfettered corporate spending.
I have yet to see any credible evidence that citizens were ever denied participation in the political process.
Citizens United is a group of citizens. It's a small one. It may not be as large as you'd like, but it IS a group of citizens who spent their money in concert with each other.
My examples of a "a horrible one party dictatorship" were Iran and the USSR, by the way. I'm not accusing Lessig or Democrats or whoever of trying to deny people participation in the political process.
Re: (Score:2)
Incidentally, the USSR largely chose that for themselves. Lenin wanted Trotsky in charge and Trotsky wanted the party to elect a leader democratically. Unfortunately, Stalin grabbed power in the wake of Lenin's death and exiled Trotsky, convicted him of treason in absentia and eventually had one of his secret service agents assassinate him with an ice axe in Mexico.
Re: $10M isn't even a good start anymore (Score:5, Informative)
I remember reading about them as they gathered support and money to make the movie. Several prominent members in Citizens United had been speaking out against a Hillary Clinton presidency for several years at that point. So, the idea that this group was formed solely to challenge election finance law is ludicrous.
No, Citizens United predates Hillary's run (Score:3)
Citizens United was founded in 1988 [wikipedia.org].
Comment removed (Score:3)
Hypocrites (Score:5, Informative)
I think the biggest thing Mayday PAC did wrong is that they were, in the end, massive hypocrites.
Their "competition" for the best video about the effect of big money was such an enormous debacle and a clear showing that their true goal was not to get money out of politics, but to get Conservative (and even libertarian) money out of politics. Their embracing and providing cover for Tom Steyer, who openly talked about influencing elections with large amounts of his money, makes Mayday PAC a bunch of liars.
http://freebeacon.com/politics... [freebeacon.com]
If Mayday were true to its stated vision, they would have condemned Steyer's actions. That they did not condemn him like they constantly did the Koch brothers proves that they don't really want what they say they want.
On top of this, their support for a constitutional amendment that would allow congress to restrict speech, makes them a contemptable organization.
I really respect Lessig's views on copyrights and patents. His efforts with his Mayday PAC have made me lose great amounts of respect for him.
Re: (Score:3)
On top of this, their support for a constitutional amendment that would allow congress to restrict speech, makes them a contemptible organization.
I searched around a bit and this is what I found:
Our plan for reform has four stages:
3. In 2017, we will then press to get Congress to pass, and the President to sign, legislation that fundamentally reforms the way elections are funded.
4. After a Congress has been elected under this new system, we will push for whatever constitutional reform is necessary to secure the gains from this reform.
Is there some non-campaign finance related restrictions on speech that they're endorsing?
If so, I'm not aware of it and I'd like to know more.
Re:Hypocrites (Score:4, Insightful)
Is there some non-campaign finance related restrictions on speech that they're endorsing? If so, I'm not aware of it and I'd like to know more.
No, the restrictions on who can run campaign advertisements are the free speech restrictions that cause people to oppose Lessig's group (and other groups, like Wolf PAC, which have the same goals.)
Think about it like this. Think about the percentage of "straight news" stories that are in fact supporting one candidate or opposing the other. Most of them, right?
That's the media. Those stories don't get covered by Lessig's restrictions, but ads in favor of the guy the media opposes are restricted. That's the big problem with Mayday style free speech restrictions. It lets some people and some corporations (media corporations and the people who run them) are allowed to say, print, or broadcast whatever they want to affect the election, but everyone else will get penalized by the government for trying to affect the election.
Lessig's big bet is that the media will agree with him and support his guys more often. That's the problem with Mayday.
Re: (Score:2)
No, the restrictions on who can run campaign advertisements are the free speech restrictions that cause people to oppose Lessig's group (and other groups, like Wolf PAC, which have the same goals.)
You talk about free speech and yet you seem to ignore the history that brought us the previous limits on such "speech."
If all limits on political spending are unconstitutional, then the natural result is going to be a Constitutional Amendment to reestablish 100 years worth of legislation that reduces the corrupting influence of money in politics.
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
Once again, your back with false equvilance, mistating cause, effect, or actual conditions on the ground for some hypothetical solution, then ignoring whatever facts don't suit you.
Re: (Score:3)
And worth mentioning. If you look at the top 10 spending SuperPACs in the last cycle, you'll find that the left-leaning PACs outspent the right-leaning PACs by more than double.
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
Tom Steyer gave a whole ton of money to get politicians to give
Re: (Score:2, Insightful)
In the last six years which party has taken away more of our personal freedom's? The answer is obvious and makes your whole one party is evil argument quite invalid.
That is a sad tale of blindness in you, and has nothing to do with the post you are responding to.
Plese, share with us:
Which party thinks the public should not be allowed to encrypt their data? BOTH
Which party thinks the federal government should control education (and hence the economy) and pre-plan our economy for us? BOTH
Which party thinks we are always at war with ever-changing enemies, and government power must constantly be extended for "these trying times" that never end? BOTH
Which party thinks the U
Ideology (Score:4, Insightful)
Re: (Score:2)
I disagree, at least here in Texas. If you actually talk to people, a very large percentage of people have a very clear idea of libertarianism in their heads. That isn't how they vote, though.
Re: (Score:2)
Re:Ideology -libertarians voting for other parties (Score:2)
This is true in states other than Texas too, from my experience.
People with clear libertarian ideas will often vote for a Republican, simply because he (or she?) makes some libertarian-esque comments while campaigning.
Libertarians tend to try to "sell" their political beliefs on the idea that "Democrats already agree with half of what we're saying, because we're liberal like them on all the social issues .... gay marriage rights, marijuana legalization, etc.", and "Republicans already agree with half of wha
Re: (Score:2)
The problem is that there's a degree of objection. Here in Norway we currently have 8 parties in parliament, one is a single representative but the other seven fairly well split into two left, three center, two right, though some in the center are more left/right leaning than others. What it means though is that there's a choice to say you want darker/lighter blue/red or that you kind of like the politics, but your party has pissed me off. The elections are actually a bit more of a cluster fuck with coaliti
Re: (Score:2)
Most people - about 80% by some estimates - have a fairly clear idea of what they believe, and that belief corresponds roughly to either the Democrat or Republican party.
Furthermore, each party makes an effort to change as popular opinions change. This is especially true of regional elections. The Republican who got elected in California is different than the Republican who got elected in Kansas.
Mostly I'm just hoping to get representatives who aren't too incompetent, and who don't mess things up too much. I don't have hope for them to not mess things up a little bit.
Re: (Score:2)
They just need people like Lessig to tell them they're stupid and/or evil more often. Then they'll be convinced to vote for Lessig's priorities instead of their own.
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
Not quite. Most people are conditioned with a fairly clear idea of what they should believe, corresponding to the party they self-identify with. There are countless examples on both sides of the two-party divide of people literally adopting the direct opposite position to the one that they had, because over time their party flipped on it.
Maybe the voters just rejected THEM... (Score:5, Interesting)
What 2014 shows most clearly is the power of partisanship in our elections. Whatever else voters wanted, they wanted first their team to win.
Maybe they showed that. Or maybe they showed that the voters don't want to put Lawrence Lessig in charge of determining who gets free speech and who does not. Maybe the voters think that individuals shouldn't lose their right to express their support for a candidate financially just because they're acting in a group. Maybe the voters think that the voters should be exposed to more information on a candidate than just what the news shows them, because the news goes out of its way to favor certain candidates and certain policies. Maybe the voters think that campaign finance laws invariably turn into incumbent protection schemes, and they think there's a lot of crappy incumbents. In short, maybe the voters rejected Lessig's idea because they think it's a bad idea.
Also, this was a wave election for Republicans. I wouldn't expect anyone using Communist imagery (and who launched on a Communist holiday*) to do well in this environment.
*If a leftist wants to convince me that his organization, which is named after a website URL and so can't contain a space, should be interpreted as "Mayday" rather than "May Day," there are 364 better days to launch the organization on than May 1st. You'll note Wolf PAC doesn't have this problem.
Re: (Score:2)
Or maybe they showed that the voters don't want to put Lawrence Lessig in charge of determining who gets free speech and who does not. Maybe the voters think that individuals shouldn't lose their right to express their support for a candidate financially just because they're acting in a group.
This was the first result for mid-term election spending that I found.
Feel free to dig up an alternative source of numbers
http://www.opensecrets.org/news/2014/11/money-won-on-tuesday-but-rules-of-the-game-changed/ [opensecrets.org]
FYI - I cleaned up their word salad into a more digestible format
Democratic House candidates - average per candidate
2010 general election: $106,494 from donors of $200 or less, 8.8 percent of the average total from individuals.
2014 general election: $89,194 from donors of $200 or less, 9.4 percent of the average total from individuals.
House GOP candidates - average per candidate
2010 general election: $153,209 from donors of $200 or less, 13.8 percent of the average total from individuals.
2014 general election: $85,118 from donors of $200 or less, 7.3 percent of the average total from individuals.
Democratic Senate candidates - average per candidate
2010 general election: $923,000 from donors of $200 or less, 12.2 percent of the average total from individuals.
2014 general election: $1,450,000 from donors of $200 or less, 17.2 percent of the average total from individuals.
GOP Senate candidates - average per candidate
2010 general election: $1,600,000 from donors of $200 or less, 16.3 percent of the average total from individuals.
2014 general election: $508,275 from donors of $200 or less, 8.1 percent of the average total from individuals.
The numbers are very clear.
House and Senate Republicans got significantly less from small donors this mid-term cycle.
House Democrats got less from small donors and (seemingly a lot) less from large donors.
Senate Democrats got a lot mo
Re: (Score:2)
The numbers are very clear. House and Senate Republicans got significantly less from small donors this mid-term cycle. House Democrats got less from small donors and (seemingly a lot) less from large donors. Senate Democrats got a lot more from small donors.
You can't draw any clear line between these numbers and what voters think of MAYDAY PAC, but it does seem to show that small donors (aka the average voter) were significantly less interested in supporting the winners this election cycle.
I didn't check the accuracy of the numbers in terms of whether the Center for Responsive Politics' numbers are true, but they don't mean what you say they do. The numbers you are quoting are for individual donors. To my knowledge, Lessig's group isn't concerned with individual donors. He's only concerned with Political Action Committees, or PACs.
In terms of the impact of PACs vs. individuals, your source, the CRP, says
Of the money raised by Senate and House campaigns, CRP’s analysis shows, the bulk still came from individual donors (as opposed to PACs)
The CRP is a lefty anti-"bad" money in politics group. They're against PACs too. If t
Re: (Score:2, Interesting)
>Maybe the voters think that the voters should be exposed to more information on a candidate than just what the news shows them, because the news goes out of its way to favor certain candidates and certain policies.
The news is biased, solution: unlimited political advertisements, which are surely non-partisan in nature. Surely you jest. Your solution for somewhat biased news, is purely %100 subjective informa
Don't totally agree (Score:5, Insightful)
Yeah, partisanship has some to do with it. But the biggest problem that Mayday.us faces is apathy and the fact that nationally 62 percent of those legally eligible to vote did not do so.
If you are American and you voted Tuesday, regardless of who you voted for, good for you! But if you did not vote and you were legally entitled to do so, go look in the mirror and you'll see why American government is as fucked up as it is. When 62 percent of eligible voters do not do so, America gets the government it deserves. And don't give me that "My not voting is a protest!" bullshit. All you do by not voting is magnify the voting power of the far right, which is the group most likely to go vote in American elections, and is the very group that is most likely to support the leaders you do not like.
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2, Interesting)
Why not become the person who cares about the candidates and issues? Even if just quietly and personally. There are some sites out there like BallotPedia that are a great resource when an upcoming election is near. It'll show you the positions up for election, the candidates, and any additional questions/measures that will be on the ballot. Some night before the election, look at the people up for election, spend a little time looking at their accomplishments (or lack thereof) and what they advocate, make a
Re: (Score:2)
Someone who doesn't care enough to vote probably doesn't care enough to find out anything about the candidates either. If you drag them into the polls, they'll vote based on whichever guy had the most ads run against him. Unmotivated voters give money more influence in elections, not less.
Re: (Score:3)
Its dumbasses like you that think "As long as you are voting for the lesser of two evils you are making a difference"
There is such a thing as a protest vote, "dumbass".
Showing up to vote is critically important. At the very least it ensures the authorities will have to do the dirty, dirty work of physically turning people away if they have been purged from the rolls.
Re: (Score:2)
So tell me...did your not voting change anything. Nope. All it did was gave other people more power over you. The idiots in power know they can count on people like you who don't even try to keep their hold on power. Well done, Citizen Sheep.
Primaries (Score:2)
Perhaps, particularly in this last election cycle, the money would be better spent in the primaries. Clearly, the American voters wanted the Democrats to lose control of the Senate and to retain control of the House. For a number of reasons, that was the overriding issue, across the board.
If Lessig's PAC had worked to get more favorable candidates into position in the primaries, they might have had a bigger return on their dollar.
Re: (Score:2)
Proved What? (Score:2)
Proved that their hypothesis about the effect of big money on voting was wrong.
Let me see if I understand this (Score:2)
He's complaining that the money he spent to defeat the influence of money in politics didn't have any influence.
The proper lesson is that his basic thesis is wrong, that money doesn't always win elections. Meg Whitman was another example (if you have to ask who she? and what election? then you prove my point -- google "meg whitman election").
But being a statist fuck, that won't be the lesson he sees. Lessig's done a lot of nice work otherwise, but he's off the rails on this.
Re: (Score:2)
Partitianship- Duh (Score:2)
> "What 2014 shows most clearly is the power of partisanship in our elections.
Duh. That is why NOTHING is going to change until we have preferential voting, such as instant runoff. Then people can vote their conscience and get new blood into power (independents, libertarians, other parties, etc) without fear of a party opposite of their view being unopposed. Otherwise it is just business as usual.
http://www.fairvote.org/ [fairvote.org]
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/R... [wikipedia.org]
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/I... [wikipedia.org]
Mayday PAC and their ilk don't want money out.... (Score:4, Insightful)
What they want to do is choke out conservative money, because that's the primary way Republicans get heard when leftists control the culture.
Mayday PAC is transparent in this regard- they ran a video contest accepting amateur-made ads supporting their cause. A video attacking Tom Steyer, the left's Koch, won the popular vote by a large margin. They picked another video based on the 'judgement of their panel of experts.'
Hmm (Score:2)
WTF is a PAC? (Score:2)
See subject
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
Lessig is a bright guy, but he's a political idiot (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
Get in the primaries, and avoid 3rd parties (Score:3)
For Lessig's group to be successful, they need to stay out of the general election, and away from third parties.
1. Stay out of the general. Most congressional districts lean just enough Democrat or Republican than supporting the "favored" candidate is a waste of resources and favoring the "unfavored" candidate is too. If the race really is close, then (a) it will get really expensive, and (b) that candidate isn't likely to still be in Congress 10 years from now -- it's a tough district!
Instead, fight in the primaries. Go to districts where the Dem or Repub candidate is sure to win the general, whomever he or she is. Then, find like-minded candidates of that party willing to run in a primary. A primary race is cheaper and easier to influence -- and if you win it, you'll coast through the general and coast through reelections. Invest in both Democratic and Republican primaries, getting candidates who want the kind of campaign finance reform Lessig's group wants, and to hell with the rest of it. Bonus if the primary is "open" -- that is, there is no incumbent.
2. Stay away from third party candidates. First of all, they almost never win. There are what, two in the Senate (VT and ME senators Sanders and King, respectively), and zero in the House if memory serves. That's 2 out of 535. Terrible odds. Secondly, even if they do win -- they're independents! Their opinions change rather easily! They're unpredictable, and they take pride on being "mavericky." Look at the independents who gave good runs in 2014 -- very hard to predict where they would come down on the details of any campaign finance reform.
Lessig mistakenly got behind independents, foolishly believing that they had a shot in hell at winning. He also spent too much money in November, when the real action is between June and September.
thats actually a good start (Score:2)
Thats actually a good start, for a first election.
I don't know why people expect rapid ground moving change to happen over night. If mayday was a real grassroots movement, it'd take it a long time for its people to gain the experiance enough to compete with corporate firms with lots of experiance. The demands of organizations full of unexperianced people to compete with proffesionals overnight is the reason why activist movements fail.
For a new concept its doing well considering how young it is.
Voters distrust "Big Money" in campaign financing (Score:2)
....so lets take advantage of that with a Super PAC.
Sounds legit.
Uh (Score:2)
Whatever else voters wanted, they wanted first their team to win.
As opposed to wanting the team they are most philosophically opposed to to win, which would of course make so much more sense.
Wha??
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
So they are going after the First Amendment.
You need to listen to someone other than Ted Cruz.
The Supreme Court ripped the First Amendment a new asshole in 2012 with their new concept that every dollar suddenly has free speech. "Going after the First Amendment" is a bullshit talking point made by people who directly benefit from corporate donations.
Re:Hire the new boss! (Score:4, Informative)
If Ted Cruze is saying the opposite of what you want done, then I'll start listening to him.
The supreme court did not rip the first amendment at all. It simply said that some forms of speech costs money and that people can pool together in order to afford that costs. It said that people who have already pooled together for other reasons can spend their resources on speech too.
Stopping that from happening is in fact denying free speech to those people in the same way you think it is bad. When people cannot pool their resources together to speak about their candidate or against another candidate, they have lost their ability to make speech that has any impact. This has nothing to do with corporate donations- when you tell people or corporations which are run by people and owned by people, that they can have all the free speech they want except when you do not agree with it or the way they are speaking- you have ripped the first amendment yourself.
Re: (Score:2)
It simply said that some forms of speech costs money and that people can pool together in order to afford that costs.
Yes, two brothers were free at last to "pool together" donating 0.05% of their wealth through shady corporations to politicians who thump people with Bibles and propose policies from bad science fiction novels. And it's a good thing, too- this was the most expensive American election in history and now we need the help of billionaires if we want to win!
Re: (Score:2)
You sound bitter from losing. We you involved in the last election?
I don't really care if two brothers pooled together or not. It is their choice not mine or yours and definitely not the US government's. They can pool together in order to get people who promise to ride unicorns backwards to congress twice a year if they want. All they are doing is getting a message out and if people like it, they will vote for them. If they do not, they will not vote for them. The Udall Gardner race is a good example of thi
Re: (Score:2)
You sound bitter from losing. We you involved in the last election?
Yeah, I voted with the majority (of the popular vote)- guilty as charged.
I don't really care if two brothers pooled together or not. It is their choice not mine or yours and definitely not the US government's.
It's "not the US government's anymore, only because some people now are so rich they can afford to legalize their activities. (The Mafia, OTOH, was never really good at infiltrating politics.)
Re: (Score:2)
lol.. It never was the government's choice to stop people from associating or speaking. There was never a need to legalize anything- just remove artificial restrictions which were unconstitutional and not supposed to be in place in the first place.
Or are you trying to say that the supreme court is corrupt and on the payroll of rich people? I highly doubt that considering some of the rulings being made.
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
Political Action Committee. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/P... [wikipedia.org]
You don't have to care; I wouldn't, if I lived outside the US.
Re: (Score:2)
Political Action Committee. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/P [wikipedia.org]...
I'd Googled it, but it just seems to be a way of funnelling money to politicians or for political objectives. S**t, that's been going on since (at least) ancient Rome, they called it ambitus.
Re: (Score:2)
Its a pot of money a lot of people put into usually with a single goal for an election.
Oh, so in Roman terms it's actually largitiones (referring to the act of providing money for political ends) rather than ambitus (a more general term for the crime of political corruption, including bribery) - see my other post above.
Re: (Score:2)
Just like sports teams who have payrolls much larger than their opponents often do not win championships, politicians who "benefit" from large PACs do not always win elections. For all the talk of being ready to listen to both (or more) candidates, most voters come in to it with a predefined checklist of positions a candidate must meet (or in some cases, not support). To clear that hurdle the opposing candidate(s) must appear to be significantly more charismatic, confident and competent than the others.
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
I can see why you posted as AC. I wouldn't want anything so ill informed associated with me either.
Corporations cannot do anything that can get a jail sentence. A corporation cannot do anything at all. It is nothing more than a legal structure that people operate under. People working for the corporation can do something illegal and those people can and do receive jail time. This concept of expecting corporations to go to jail is about the same as expecting the wife of a bank robber to go to jail simply be
Re: (Score:2, Insightful)
so corporations are not people, I agree. They have been ruled in court to be people, which is bad, because as you've stated, they are clearly not people.