

What would it take for the people to buy back Congress? - espeed
http://theelectors.org/#

======
mbrubeck
_"there were 146 million registered voters in the US.... for $3 a month we
could outspend special interests and campaign contributors combined."_

Isn't this just like the "if only 1%..." fallacy, except it's "if only
_100%_..."?

~~~
espeed
$3 per month just shows how little money it would take to change the game --
compare that to how much extra we are paying in taxes to pay for unnecessary
expenditures.

It's $36 per year -- people could donate more -- you can donate up to $2,000
per candidate per election. And $3 per month is to outspend _all_
contributions and all lobbying expenditures combined -- you could spend much
less to be an influential player.

~~~
JimmyL
I don't think anyone's doubting the $3/month figure - most people could spare
that. It's the "getting 100% of registered voters to participate" part that
has many people thinking you're overreaching slightly.

For the most part, the people that currently donate to political organizations
will keep donating to those same organizations - they're happy with them, they
voluntarily chose to donate to them, and they will need a lot of convincing to
move their donor-dollars. So you're going to need to get people who don't
currently donate money for political purposes to join your effort, and have
their money used to pay for corporate lobbyists. How?

~~~
espeed
You don't have to get 100% of registered voters to participate. For one thing,
if someone gives more than $3 then that means you need less people to
contribute.

But more importantly, the top corporate donor is AT&T
(<http://www.opensecrets.org/orgs/index.php>) -- if you click on AT&T's name,
you will see that AT&T contributed $4.5 million total in 2008. At $3 per
month, that's only 125,366 users.

The $3 per month per registered voter is to outspend _all_ contributors and
_all_ lobby expenditures combined -- including what individuals gave. You
don't need to raise that much to be an influential player.

------
dangoldin
Although a nice idea, it suffers from the fact that it would be very difficult
to get that many people on the same page. Smaller groups are able to come to
decisions much more quickly and will be able to move faster.

The lobbiest advantage is that they can afford to raise money quickly and be
able to focus it on specific issues.

Although every citizen can together raise a ton of money, once that money is
raised it will be very difficult allocating it.

Imagine if people had to come together in order to raise money for museums
rather than relying on large individual contributions. It's likely that many
fewer museums would exist.

For a deeper look at this I recommend reading the book by Mancur Olson - The
Rise and Decline of Nations: Economic Growth, Stagflation, and Social
Rigidities. It takes a look at special interest groups and their effects on
economic growth.

[http://www.amazon.com/Rise-Decline-Nations-Stagflation-
Rigid...](http://www.amazon.com/Rise-Decline-Nations-Stagflation-
Rigidities/dp/0300030797/ref=sr_1_1?ie=UTF8&s=books&qid=1254613920&sr=8-1)

~~~
espeed
The people don't have to be on the same page for every issue -- some will have
opposing views -- but even with opposing views, at least it's the voice of the
electorate and not corporations. Contributions are made on a per-issue basis
so they are self allocating.

------
jerf
Three problems leap immediately to mind:

Do you _really_ want to play One Dollar, One Vote?

Can we say "boil the ocean"?

Finally, the other big problem with these approaches is that people tend to
think in the back of their head that deep down, everybody agrees with them,
and the reason the government doesn't reflect their exact desires is that
special interests and other things are getting in the way of how everybody
feels. That's wrong. People genuinely want different things. How are you going
to prevent this from becoming a more expensive clone of what we've already
got? It's all very easy to imagine this great getting together of people that
will all pull together, but it's the same people that are in the old system.

You're really better off just getting corruption out of the system. Yes, it's
harder than anything else, and may very well prove impossible, but if it is,
nothing else is going to work anyhow.

~~~
espeed
Putting more money into the system seems like a perverse idea, but in
Washington money buys access and influence. Corporate lobbyists will continue
to do so regardless so we must counter that in some way. Politicians need
resources to get elected and remain in office so they are naturally attracted
to whomever can meet those needs.

It's Maslow's hierarchy of needs -- you need enough resources to feel safe in
your position before you can function effectively. Right now corporate
lobbyists are providing those resources to politicians, and if politicians
don't play ball, the lobbyists will take the resources away and give them to
the politician's challengers.

Politicians can rationalize it away with expressions like "you can't govern if
you're not in office." This is a bad position to be in for the American
people. It's hard for us to win in a game like this unless politicians have a
better option for raising money to get elected. However, if the people are
able to overpower corporate lobbyists, then maybe we can persuade politicians
to enact laws that reduce corporate lobbyists' ability to influence Congress.

Also, the ability for the community and system to debunk propaganda is key
because you're absolutely right, it could amplify corporate positions if
people keep buying into it.

Propaganda works in part because we're so busy that we don't have time to
verify all the claims. With the help of the community, the system would make
it easy for people to get true information on the issues they care about.

Most propaganda I've seen can be easily debunked with hard evidence (links to
the actual bills, etc) -- you just have to take the time to look into it. When
you reveal the secret to a magician's trick, it loses its effect, and that's
why putting lobbyist's methods front and center could go a long way to
reducing the effects.

------
espeed
FYI: We're looking for developers to help build this. As Paul Graham says, "Be
good" ([http://omnisio.com/startupschool08/paul-graham-at-startup-
sc...](http://omnisio.com/startupschool08/paul-graham-at-startup-school-08))
-- here's your chance to change the world for the better. This is a benevolent
project for the common good. Contact us -- we'd love to chat.

~~~
Perceval
How 'common' is the common good you're thinking about here? If this lobby
group becomes dominated by Republican issues and concerns, will you still
consider it a "benevolent project for the common good?"

~~~
espeed
That could happen. As it stands right now, we're losing the battle to
corporate lobbyists, and we don't have many tools in place to do anything
about it. This is about creating a tool to deal with the situation. It gives
people the opportunity to take action -- but you can't force them to act.

------
jws
Remember that there are good lobbyists too. I know an industry that was nearly
accidentally legislated out of business. They spent most of 6 figures on a
lobbyist to find the right people, and give them the right sentence to be
added to the bill. Industry saved.

If you want to stop the "bad" lobbyists, you need to develop a more accurate
description for what it is you are fighting.

~~~
espeed
Lobbyists advocating corporate interests that run contrary to the common good.

~~~
jpwagner
who gets to define "common good"?

(and who can lobby that committee?)

~~~
espeed
The American people. The people submit issues that are important to them and
others vote up and allocate micropayments to issues they support. The amount
of support behind each issue would indicate the level of common good. Then
politicians have the option of supporting those issues or not.

~~~
JimmyL
The American people don't have the greatest record on deciding what the
"common good" is.

Think of something like gun control. As someone who lives in a city, if I
could participate in the US political system I would be in strong favour of
aggressive nationwide gun control legislation, as would most of the people who
live around me - and I wouldn't be interested in giving money to a politician
who was strongly against that, full-stop. Likewise, being pro-equal marriage
and abortion rights are deal-breakers for me and many of my friends.

I recognize, however, that there are many people who feel the exact opposite
of me, with equal ferocity. For issues as divisive as these, how do you plan
on deciding what the "common good" is to support?

~~~
espeed
The organization would not lobby for any position directly. Instead, lobbying
firms that specialize in the given policy areas would lobby on behalf of the
users that support those policies, and the users could have a say in which
lobbying firms are used for particular issues.

Regarding how to handle majority vs minority positions, that's a good question
that I have been debating myself. One way would be to use money allocated for
each position to hire separate firms to lobby for the given position. The pro
is that if the competing positions are truly what the people want and have not
been manipulated by corporate lobbyists, then at least the people's voice is
being heard. The downside is that you are creating an arms race so the people
are spending more money than they need to because money from either side is
canceling out the effects of the other.

Another way you could approach it is make it so that money from the minority
nullifies the money from the majority _before_ it's paid to lobbyists so users
in the majority and minority end up paying less (the minority pays nothing and
the majority only pays the difference). This keeps lobbyists from being the
major benefactor and saves the people's money so they can use it to support
other issues. The downside is that the minority might want its money spent
anyway and then you get into a type of Prisoner's Dilemma
(<http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Prisoners_dilemma>).

Allowing the money to be spent may be the best way since it is the voice of
the electorate -- even if the electorate has opposing views because at least
it's the voice of the electorate, not corporations.

------
stcredzero
Mobilizing the population (and their donations) through the internet is a big
part of how Barack Obama got elected. (And yes, the rest was behind the scenes
wheeling and dealing in oak-paneled back-rooms.) We know this can work.

As always, "Who watches the Watchmen?" What ensures these other lobbyists
don't become part of the corruption problem?

~~~
Perceval
>What ensures these other lobbyists don't become part of the corruption
problem?

This project is not a solution to the problem of money in politics. It's a "if
you can't lick 'em, join 'em" project.

~~~
espeed
Yes, fight fire with fire :)

------
cousin_it
So, congresspeople stop worrying about voters once they get elected. The
obvious solution is holding elections _after_ congresspeople vote on issues,
to determine whose votes will count and who gets thrown out. Too bad it won't
be implemented because it's "too big a change".

~~~
espeed
And most people don't track how their representatives vote on each issue,
especially on issues that don't get much press coverage so it's easy to pacify
corporate lobbyists in this type of legislation.

You are right, changing the system from within probably won't happen so you
need an external solution. That is what this proposal is -- an external
solution that can be implemented regardless of what Congress does.

------
jpwagner
A noble cause, but the implementation may need more thought.

Outspending the lobbyists is not a sustainable solution.

What would prevent lobbyists from spending more? (requiring an increased
"tax", etc...)

How would this "tax" eventually be weaned off?

~~~
espeed
If you get enough people involved, you'll have a force that not only has the
money but the power to vote politicians out of office. Then you can work to
persuade politicians to enact laws that will make it harder for corporate
lobbyists to influence legislation.

------
JimmyL
As I read it, your goal is to get more Americans to join your project than
currently use Facebook, and have them all do $3/month in targeted political
donations.

Didn't that get tried by MoveOn?

~~~
espeed
This is a non-partisan effort, and people can submit whatever issues they want
addressed -- then the community votes on them. It is not driven by a political
agenda other than to combat corporate lobbyists.

We are leveraging previous social waves to enable people to take action, to do
something about the problems, rather than being relegated to spectators in the
political game. And they can do it from the comfort of their homes as they
watch the issues debated on the news.

~~~
JimmyL
That's how MoveOn works - it lets its community members vote on issues that it
will prioritize in its campaigns and lobbying.

~~~
espeed
Move on is partisan (progressive) organization, and they accept donations in a
traditional way (<https://pol.moveon.org/donate/donate.html>). They have an
"Action Forum," which is a discussion forum where people can post ideas, but I
don't believe you can contribute micropayments toward specific issues.

------
Foreclosure
Very good Post and i love to share to all of my friends.. Thanks
<http://www.gethomesolutions.com>

------
toadstone
if the population knew which congressperson deserves their $3, they would know
which congressperson deserves their vote

~~~
espeed
The $3 could be divided among all congresspersons whom vote in favor of their
issues, and it could be pre-allocated for potential supporters so politicians
know how much money is available if they support it.

~~~
toadstone
The people do not currently vote in their own interest. Having them give $3/mo
as well as their vote will not solve this. This project assumes that people
are well informed enough to know whom to support. They are not, and that is
why a campaign well funded by special interest is more effective at getting
someone elected than giving the people what they need.

~~~
espeed
Campaigns are about issues and appealing to people's interest. The people's
interest are a politician's primary concern during election years, but the
problem is that after the election lobbyists go to work and the politician's
primary concern becomes the lobbyists' interests because they are the loudest
voice and can make or break a politician in the next election.

I agree that people do not currently always vote in their own interest, and
one of the reasons for this is that lobbyists are able to convince people that
they don't want something they should. That's the power of propaganda.
Lobbyists don't just lobby politicians -- they lobby the people too. One of
the systems primary services will be to debunk lobbyist propaganda.

Also, $3 per month isn't a hard number -- $3 just shows how little money it
would take to change the game -- compare that to how much extra we are paying
in taxes to pay for unnecessary expenditures.

