
McCutcheon: Unlimited Bribery - jval
http://unlimitedcorruption.com/
======
hawkharris
For a long time, I assumed that lobbyists pressured legislators to take
certain positions in exchange for money or other forms of influence.

After watching a few documentaries about campaign finance reform, I realized
this is only partially true. In reality, it's just as common for legislators
to solicit money from lobbyists.

In one case I heard of a policymaker leaving a voicemail for a corporate
lobbyist that went something along the lines of, "I hear you represent [x
liquor company]. I sit on a committee charged with reviewing alcohol-related
ads. I was just wondering why I haven't received any contributions from you."

------
hosay123
What's sad is for a moment I thought this _really might be_ some kind of
Kickstarter for political influence

~~~
DuskStar
My first thought was "Man, this would have made a nice hackathon project..."
And now that I know it's not actually real, I'm wondering how hard it would be
to set up a mobile app that allowed credit card donations to various political
groups/campaigns, with included position list and search function... (but
obviously not the "text a law" or similar functionality)

~~~
VladRussian2
> "text a law"

While trying to be a parody, the page basically describes ALEC.

------
jjoonathan
Great concept, great execution. A lovely parody! Definitely earned my
clickthrough.

Here are the details of the law they are pushing for:
[http://anticorruptionact.org/](http://anticorruptionact.org/)

I'm very happy to know that campaign finance is getting this sort of
attention. I've always been incredulous that in our system, bribery isn't just
_legal_ , it's literally _mandatory_ \-- you can't get elected if you're too
clean to accept shady campaign contributions.

I _love_ the $100 tax-rebate-for-campaign-contributions idea. I have long
thought that we needed to publicly fund campaigns but despaired at the power
of entrenched interests: existing campaign finance reform laws came with
loopholes that ultimately revealed them as PR stunts rather than legitimate
efforts to curb bribery. The tax rebate is exciting because it sneaks a
backdoor into what would appear to be another bogus reform law.

"Naming and shaming" lobbyists, muzzling the latest contribution-funneling-
device-du-jour, and calling for more regular rule enforcement aren't
strategies that strike me as particularly promising, since they simply call
for more of what we're already doing (if x gets us nothing, no reason to
expect 2x will get us more). But they serve as the perfect vehicle to deliver
#7, the tax rebate, which silently activates once public interest reaches a
certain threshold (enough to outspend current election financiers) and gives
the bill teeth. A brilliant design!

I really hope this works. I doubt it will, but I really, really want to be
wrong.

~~~
ewoodrich
Oregon has a 50 dollar (or $100 for married filers) tax credit for direct
campaign contributions to political candidates or certain classes of
organizations (I tend to just donate to a candidate though, for
confidence/simplicity.)

It's definitely incentivized me to redirect this portion of my Oregon taxes to
a candidate (on local/state/national level) I support.

EDIT: link with info.

[http://www.oregonfamilycouncil.org/sites/default/files/under...](http://www.oregonfamilycouncil.org/sites/default/files/understanding-
the-political-tax-credit.pdf)

~~~
jjoonathan
Thanks for linking, I hadn't heard of this program before. It's even better
that this sort of plan has precedent inside the US!

I'm fairly certain no other form of campaign finance can work. You can require
lobbyists and politicians to jump through higher and higher hoops but at the
end of the day politicians will still need to fund their campaigns, most
people still won't want to spend their money on politics, and lobbyists will
still be willing to do what is necessary to net a few 100-1000x ROI wins for
their employers. The hoops will be jumped and the asymmetric bribery will
continue until regular people get in on the game, and the only way to get
regular people in on the game is to pay them to do so since, unlike their
wealthier counterparts, they can't count on the occasional 100-1000x ROI win
to incentivize their donations.

------
wintersFright
This is the backstory [http://www.businessinsider.com.au/whats-at-stake-in-
mccutche...](http://www.businessinsider.com.au/whats-at-stake-in-mccutcheon-v-
fec-2013-2)

The U.S. Supreme Court is going to hear a campaign finance case that could do
away with the contribution limits that limit rich people’s influence over
politics.Currently, federal law only lets individuals give $2,600 to any one
candidate during a single election.

On top of that limit, people can only give $123,000 to candidates, political
action committees, and parties over a two-year period.

<continues>

------
rob05c
SCOTUS takes their existing prejudices and filters them through the
Constitution like a sieve, refusing to consider consequences in a mad form of
Rule Deontology.

I don't care what the Constitution says. The constitutional provisions for
petitioning and free speech have turned into bribery. Bribery is wrong. If the
Constitution says otherwise, the Constitution is wrong.

~~~
Amadou
I really like Lawrence Lessig's proposal. It is a "hack" of the Citizen's
United ruling along the lines of how copyleft is a hack of copyright law.

In essence, he proposes that all campaign donations go into a "black box" and
are secretly reversible. So you can write a check to your politician's PAC,
hand it directly to him but he must deposit the funds into the black box. Then
you can secretly get some or all of your money back - the politician can't
tell who reneged on their donation.

Lessig's approach does not in any way restrict how much you can give to a
politician - there is no "censorship" in mandating that political donations go
into a black box - the campaign can still see that you made the donation -
they still "hear" your speech. Nor are you forced to keep it a secret if you
reneg, you are free to tell the politician you took back your money if you
really want him to know that.

Reportedly something like the above was tried on a small scale, an election
for Miami or south Florida, judges. Apparently the result was that all of the
campaigns netted exactly zero dollars in donations when all was said and done.

------
jmduke
This is the type of clever advertisement that won't change the opinion of
anyone, because its target audience is already on its side.

(Also, and I'm saying this as a nerdy Democrat, calling out the lobbying
efforts of Bloomberg, Koch, et al is easier but significantly less educational
than, say, the lobbying efforts of Google and Amazon.)

------
tokenizer
If only this was real... Seriously, 123,000$ could leverage you much from
contracts, tax relief, or military might. People may think this is bad, but
usually with the government, bribes take a long time, and are usually geared
towards everyone, so while cheap, are time sinks. This would solve my problems
with bribing.

------
gojomo
Apparently in Sweden, political donations to the parties are unlimited and
anonymous. That must be why Sweden is well-known the world over as a brutal
hypercapitalist kleptocratic dystopia. Right?

------
shitlord
Haha, this is hilarious, but also kind of a sad reminder of the world we live
in.

