
How to use a super PAC to kill super PACs - aaronlifshin
http://www.washingtonpost.com/blogs/the-switch/wp/2014/07/02/how-to-use-a-superpac-to-kill-superpacs/
======
jgj
Slightly relevant: Lessig is currently doing an AMA (with Jack Abramoff) over
on reddit [1].It's only an hour old so there's still a chance that your
question might be answered.

[1]
[http://www.reddit.com/r/IAmA/comments/29nq9p/lawrence_lessig...](http://www.reddit.com/r/IAmA/comments/29nq9p/lawrence_lessig_and_jack_abramoff_here_we_both/)

~~~
snowwrestler
For me the association with Jack Abramoff damages Larry Lessig's credibility
on the topic of corruption. Abramoff has no special insight into the problem;
nothing he did was particularly innovative or insightful. He simply did things
that everyone knows is wrong, and got famous because he got caught.

Abramoff demonstrated that he would do or say anything to succeed in lobbying.
Now that he's a convicted felon, he's doing and saying anything to succeed as
a pundit. He's exactly the same person; only the context has changed.

That Lessig takes him seriously makes me think that Lessig is dangerously
naive about the system and people he is criticizing.

------
jparker165
This is incredibly important. For all the really impassioned conversation
about the broken state of US politics (on HN and elsewhere), the Mayday PAC is
one of the very few legitimate plans-of-action. It's no silver bullet, but
1000% a needed step toward reform and worth your support.

~~~
fleitz
It might be interesting if they had more of a platform, than 'fixing broken
government', or 'fundamental reform', everyone wants that.

The entire point of government is to figure out what those statements really
mean...

~~~
floatrock
Mayday is run by Lawrence Lessig of Creative Commons fame (the guy also did a
lot of work with Aaron Schwartz). He has very specific plans on what he wants
this PAC to do. Check out his March TED talk for example:
[http://www.ted.com/talks/lawrence_lessig_the_unstoppable_wal...](http://www.ted.com/talks/lawrence_lessig_the_unstoppable_walk_to_political_reform)

The problem and his strategy are laid out in his (free CC-licensed) book The
USA is Lesterland:
[http://lesterland.lessig.org/](http://lesterland.lessig.org/) As with all big
ideas, that requires a bit more time to digest than a HN comment. Plus, he's a
better writer than I am.

The main idea of his PAC is if political bills can only happen in our system
with the approval of 'Big Money', you need Big Money to pass the reform that
would get rid of Big Money's influence. Hence, you need a PAC that gets
involved in specific races and puts pressure on candidates who don't support
the changes they're pushing for.

On a more broader level, Lessig is one of the big names in a loose coalition
pushing for a constitutional convention that would amend the Constitution to
overturn Citizen's United. The neat thing about such a convention is it's a
checks-and-balances way that the popular vote can effectively by-pass their
congressional representatives. This has happened only once before:
[http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Convention_to_propose_amendment...](http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Convention_to_propose_amendments_to_the_United_States_Constitution)

This can happen if 2/3's of states agree to participate. California just
passed a "we're in" bill a few days ago, joining Vermont. Similar bills are
pending in other states: [http://www.sfgate.com/politics/article/California-
seeks-cons...](http://www.sfgate.com/politics/article/California-seeks-
constitutional-convention-over-5579322.php)

This is actually one of the few non-partisan issues that both sides can agree
on. Well, the constituents of both sides... most representatives hate this
idea, which is exactly why you need a well-funded PAC to exert influence onto
them.

~~~
jessaustin
_...a constitutional convention that would amend the Constitution to overturn
Citizen 's United._

That's a great deal of effort to overturn a ruling which was literally this: a
few dudes who made a video critical of Hillary Clinton _are_ allowed to
advertise for the sale and viewing of that video. I haven't seen the video
myself and don't particularly care to do. I'm sure it's a horrible movie made
by horrible people. However, it seems like really basic political and
commercial speech, which ought to be protected from government interference.
If Lessig wants to overturn that, I'm glad he will fail. Why not a
constitutional amendment for _Eldred_?

~~~
floatrock
There's literally what a case decides, and there's effectively what it allows.

Effectively it opens the door for unlimited campaign spending by anonymous
donors. Have you ever donated to a campaign? How much? $20, $100? Perhaps
$1000 if you've got money to burn? What did it get you? A thank you form
letter from some intern staffer? That's cute.

Now, if you allow unlimited anonymous donations, we're talking about order-of-
magnitude $10k, $100k. NOW you've got the politician's ear. Think the people
who donate on the order of your annual salary are going to be whispering the
same thing the people who donate $20 want their representative to hear?

More importantly, if you're a career politician looking to secure $1M for your
next campaign 4 years down the line, are you going to spend your time courting
50k grassroots donors, or are you going to just find 10 people to attend your
$100k-a-plate fundraiser? (+/\- PAC rules on staying "independent" of
course... just "fire" your campaign manager and give him a recommendation for
a consulting gig... the $100k is actually for the independent consulting
organization). It's a no brainer who you're going to represent.

So, now we have very wealthy people who can effectively donate unlimited sums
of money anonymously outside of campaign disclosure laws (and therefore
outside of unwanted public spotlight that would otherwise discourage them) to
push for their interests.

When the only people who exert influence are the absurdly wealthy, well that
starts to sound more like an oligarchy, not a representative democracy. Seems
like a good enough cause to amend the constitution to me.

~~~
rayiner
Citizens United absolutely does not allow for what you're suggesting. Citizens
United says that the government cannot limit how people, organized into
corporations or otherwise, spend their money supporting particular candidates.
It does not say that the government cannot prevent candidates from taking
unlimited amounts of money for their campaigns.

That is a key distinction: the first follows from the government's inability
to restrict free speech, whether or not it takes money to produce that speech
(in this case, a documentary). The second follows from the ability of the
government to reasonably regulate the candidates themselves and their
activities.

If Lessig wants to overturn Citizens United, I too hope he fails. Because that
means the West Virginia legislature can ban Sierra Club from creating videos
about the environmental destruction caused by coal mining. It means that the
government could ban Sicko (produced by the Weinstein Company).

Citizens United was not a "money is speech case." It was a "movies are speech"
case.

~~~
floatrock

      > It does not say that the government cannot prevent candidates from taking unlimited amounts of money for their campaigns.
    

Correct. Hence the "+/\- independence" comment.

Sure, they're just making a documentary. That happens to come out during an
election campaign. And it's advertised heavily with the same language as
campaign slogans. And given away for free to anyone who will listen.

But it's not political spending, it's free speech.

The problem is it's both.

We're still effectively in a situation where large interests can collectively
pool their resources together anonymously to win far more influence than the
people who are supposed to be democratically represented here.

But more perversely, it's hijacking free speech as a backdoor loophole into
political gerrymandering. For every Sierra Club citizen's group, there are far
more WalMarts or Koch Industries with far deeper pockets. The Sierra Club
dues-paying members are being drowned out by the voices of the few and wealthy
-- again, it's looking like an oligarchy, not a representative democracy. Yes,
you can't stop something like that without limiting free speech, which of
course nobody wants either.

As far as I see it, once a loophole like this is identified, you can either
argue for abolishing all campaign finance laws (since we've found ways around
them), or you reconcile campaign finance laws with free speech that looks like
and quacks like campaign expenditures.

What the legal framework for that would be, you're right, I don't know. Call
it overturning McCutcheon vs. FEC if you don't want to call it Citizens
United. Or just call it Campaign Finance Reform. There's no single boogeyman
here, it's a refactor of the system we're talking about.

~~~
head_stomp
I'd call it overturning the first amendment. Freedom of the press specifically
concerned a few wealthy guys printing and distributing pamphlets to unequally
influence politics. There is no loophole. I very strongly oppose your
political preferences.

~~~
floatrock
Candidates with the most spending win 8 of 10 senate races and 9 of 10 house
races. It's there in the data: [https://www.opensecrets.org/news/2012/01/big-
spender-always-...](https://www.opensecrets.org/news/2012/01/big-spender-
always-wins/)

The reality is money buys elections.

Given the choice between 10 donors that can afford to just drop well above the
median annual salary (albeit as 'independent' documentaries) and trying to
rally 50k mom-and-pop donors that contribute $20 each, it's a no-brainer which
is the easier route to electoral success.

The question is do you want to be represented by the voice of the 10 or the
50k?

We're not talking about overturning the first. We're trying to figure out how
to reconcile the first with decentralizing some very centralized influence
over public policy.

You should be distrustful of any centralized political system. That's what we
have, not by design but by reality.

~~~
jessaustin
_Incumbents_ win most elections. They also raise the most money, because...
they're going to win. Campaign donors are corrupt but they're not stupid.

You're not going to fix the problems you want to fix, because you don't see
how they are reinforced by every other aspect of the system.

~~~
floatrock
You're right, it's a self-reinforcing loop: incumbents win most elections, so
they raise the most money, so they run the most effective campaigns, so they
win the incumbency.

The solution is to chip away at this self-reinforcing feedback loop.
Decentralize the fundraising through effective campaign finance limits and you
create more dependence on small donors. Small donors care more about having
their beliefs represented than choosing the winning horse (and the influence
that comes with the winning horse being indebted to you).

The incumbency bias is a circular result of centralized money going for the
easy bet. Decentralize public funding and the easy bet becomes less clear,
weakening the feedback loop.

------
robrenaud
My wife pointed this out to me today and said she wanted to give $200 because
the issue is very important to her. We gave $500.

------
twoodfin
I don't see how subsidizing candidates who agree to donation limits will work.
In the last few Presidential elections we've already blown past the viability
of the existing public funding.

Anyway, I am one of those rare folks who thinks there's _not enough_ money in
politics. Or at least that we shouldn't worry about the money that's already
there. The Center for Responsive Politics (a pro-reform group) estimates that
total Federal direct election spending reached $6 billion in 2012[1]. Even if
"shadowy groups" spent twice that over again (they didn't), that's $18 billion
worth of spending to influence the future of a $3.6T government regulating a
$15T economy.

To put it another way, $18B is less than half the annual revenue of the Coca
Cola company, or only 6x what Americans spend on scented candles every year.

[1] [http://www.opensecrets.org/news/2012/10/2012-election-
spendi...](http://www.opensecrets.org/news/2012/10/2012-election-spending-
will-reach-6/)

~~~
BrandonMarc
Good points. McCain & Feingold passed campaign finance reform about 10 years
ago, for the claimed purpose of getting money out of politics.

What that bill _did_ succeed in doing was put more boundaries in place for
less-powerful entities, while ensuring the more-powerful entities can do what
they want, via fiat, loophole, secrecy, whatever.

Mission accomplished?!

------
fleitz
Said every SuperPAC ever.

What politician isn't for fixing broken government?

Who is standing up for broken government?

What congress isn't committed to fundamental reform?

~~~
BrandonMarc
Exactly. Just the other day, Obama proclaimed that 80% of US citizens want
immigration reform. When it's worded that vaguely, sure, that's true ... the
vast majority want that. But "reform" means different things to different
people, and very often the _opposite_ things.

Worse, it's often mutually exclusive. In fact, "reform" to some people means
ensuring we _do not do_ the things that "reform" means to others.

Consider ... does immigration reform mean?

• keeping families together

• amnesty

• legal worker status

• in-state college tuition for non-citizens

• a fence, wall, drones, troops, sensors

• stopping Mexican troops when they cross the border

• dealing with cartels who vandalize billboards to threaten US officials
(plato o plomo)

• ... etc

Many people want some of these things to happen, and want some of these things
to _not_ happen. Yet they all want "reform".

The same is true for every "reform" of "broken" government.

------
snowwrestler
I really like that Lessig is doing this because it is a concrete test of his
assertion that money distorts politics.

If Mayday PAC raises their money (and I hope they do), they will go into 5
House races and attempt to make campaign finance reform the determining factor
in how voters choose their representative.

If they succeed, it will ironically demonstrate that Lessig is right about the
power of money to shape the mind of the electorate.

But if they spend the money and fail to make campaign finance reform a major
voter issue, it will be a demonstration that money is actually not
particularly distorting. (I think this is likely; voters typically care a lot
more about issues or ideology than process.)

The most annoying aspect of the Mayday PAC coverage is watching tech reporters
breathlessly report the most banal aspects of any political campaign, like
this:

> Then there's the question of what Mayday PAC will spend its resources on. As
> a super PAC, the outfit isn't allowed to give directly to campaigns. But it
> can spend unlimited amounts to promote one candidate over another, or to
> defend a candidate from attacks. There are even more choices Mayday PAC will
> have to make. For advertising alone, you can choose from radio ads, TV ads
> and online ads. You can take out ads on broadcast TV, satellite TV or cable.
> You can pick the time of day. You can conduct a massive air war that reaches
> everybody in a market, or you can spend more on selectively targeted ads
> that simultaneously show one household a 30-second spot tied to gun control
> and their next-door neighbor an ad linked to healthcare.

~~~
brenschluss
> But if they spend the money and fail to make campaign finance reform a major
> voter issue, it will be a demonstration that money is actually not
> particularly distorting.

No, it would be a demonstration that money, for many voters, may not initially
appear distorting. It could also be a demonstration that some voters, like
you, are largely apathetic to whether or not a political process is influenced
by money.

~~~
snowwrestler
If they spend a lot of money, and it has no effect, that would put a dent in
the theory that money always has an effect.

They'd be in good company, though. The Sunlight Foundation found no
correlation between the outside spending in the 2012 federal elections and
race outcomes.

------
viggity
Everyone hates Washington Special Interests, unless of course it is their
special interest. Then it is righteous.

------
vijayr
Can someone explain how this is going to work? They are going to send a
handful of representatives to washington - what is the guarantee that those
representatives won't change their stand once they get elected (or the money
dries up)? And who choses which candidates to support?

Also, isn't 12 million (assuming they raise that much) too small? May be it is
a good start.

Not trying to be negative, just trying to understand what their plan is.

~~~
fleitz
Pass a bunch of laws outlawing what they perceive to be wrong with democracy,
ignore the unintended consequences, raise money based on those consequences,
pass more laws, create more unintended consequences, raise more money.

Basically they are going to do exactly what everyone has done before because
their plan is to do exactly what everyone has done before, which is why they
are raising money to get money out of politics, apparently this solution has
eluded us for years because no one could raise $2.6 million dollars.

------
spiek
They raised ~1 mil in 2 weeks. So they thought they could then raise 5x that
amount in 2x the time? How is that a rational conclusion?

~~~
fleitz
[http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Exponential_growth](http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Exponential_growth)

------
nardi
I have donated twice, and I hope everyone here donates as well. This is the
first step toward fixing our democracy. If you want to get corporate bribery
and cronyism out of politics, it's time to put your money where your mouth is.

------
trybaj
I'm a little disappointed it's not called suicide PAC.

------
dang
The submission title ("Larry Lessig's PAC is fighting big money in politics
with crowdsourced Bitcoin") was not only highly editorialized, it was
linkbaity (Bitcoin is barely mentioned). Submitters: this is against the HN
guidelines. Please don't do it.

The article title isn't great either. We can change it if someone suggests an
accurate, neutral replacement, preferably using language from the article.
Usually an article contains a natural such title in its first paragraph, but I
don't see one here.

~~~
sp332
End of the second paragraph: _launching a super PAC that would dismantle the
modern-day campaign finance system_

