
MayDay PAC - oskarth
http://avc.com/2014/07/mayday-pac/
======
ehc
The key thing that I don't think enough people understand is that this
campaign finance reform that Lessig is working on is an issue for anyone who
has ANY cause. Whether your cause is is climate change, net neutrality, or
anything else, meaningful change with that issue is largely blocked by THIS
issue (money in politics).

Lessig's personal path of giving up his work copyright reform as his "issue"
to focus on corruption is exactly this understanding - that this needs to be
treated as the core problem before any progress can be made with net
neutrality, immigration or other issues.

For this reason I'm very surprised that the tech community, who is so loud
about net neutrality, isn't speaking up more about this corruption. Sure,
there are different approaches to fighting against it, but I think Lessig's
experiment is a great one and definitely worth our money.

~~~
dantheman
This issue is about limiting the ability to speak. Anyone that is against
Super PACs and "getting money out of politics" is arguing that speech needs to
be reduced. It's treating the symptom, not the cause. The reason so much money
is being spent, is that the amount of money the government controls and the
amount of regulations it creates the potential for groups to get significant
advantages.

The correct solution is to decentralize power; it easier to win one election
instead of 50. And to reduce the amount of activity the government does, less
pork spending and less market distortions.

~~~
osdiab
His platform is not that speech needs to be reduced. It's that as many parties
as possible need to be able to have a voice, and because certain entities can
spend dramatically more money than the rest of society, they can drown out the
voices of others.

Lessig gives specific examples of possible policies to illustrate that it's
actually an increase in speech rather than a decrease in it, here:
[https://mayday.us/the-plan/#fundamental-reform-in-the-way-
el...](https://mayday.us/the-plan/#fundamental-reform-in-the-way-elections-
are-funded)

~~~
dantheman
It does reduce the ability for people to speak. You said it yourself, it makes
it so they can't drown out the voices of others.

People are not equal and we need to recognize that; some are famous - their
speech is hear by more people than mine, some are rich, some are well
connected, some are beautiful, some own a newspaper, etc. Not everyone has the
same voice, and that's ok.

------
rdl
I'll probably donate to this in a few hours, but to understand it more fully,
what is the argument _against_ getting PACs/money out of politics?

(Clearly there's a simple argument against MayDay PAC itself, that it might be
unsuccessful in its mission, but that's a much weaker argument.)

As far as I understand it, there are four main arguments for money in
politics:

1) Money is speech; protecting free speech is important, and protecting
political speech (and thus financial donations to campaigns) is probably the
most important form of protected speech.

2) The utilitarian argument: if money is taken out of politics, groups with
less economic power but greater organization and numbers will become dominant.
(I'm not sold on pure democracy either). Control of "large audiences" without
control of money to reach the public might become important; I'd rather live
in a world where I can donate hundreds or thousands to EFF to influence policy
vs. a world where Pat Robertson or Oprah are the only people who can influence
voters.

3) The implementation argument: if this eliminates a fairly accessible form of
financing (the PAC), those who control smaller but more enduring forms of
money for political contribution will rise in power. IMO, those people tend to
be much more objectionable than people who contribute to PACs. Or, if
companies are kept out of politics, but unions are allowed to continue
donating, etc.

4) Priorities: this might NOT be the most important issue right now. Maybe
immigration is. Maybe not going to war in Iran is. etc.

I don't know how valid these arguments are.

~~~
nickff
One of the strongest arguments against FEC limits on speech is that many (very
long-term) incumbent politicians support it. If these people support limits,
it is most likely that they believe unlimited spending by outside groups will
influence the populace in ways that are politically inconvenient (for the
elected officials). Almost every American voter is (rightfully) skeptical of
the honesty and integrity of their elected officials, and wants to allow for
more political dynamism. It seems plain that unlimited campaign spending by
outside groups will allow for new ideas, and real change.

~~~
pron
> It seems plain that unlimited campaign spending by outside groups will allow
> for new ideas, and real change.

Absolutely not! Money is one of the most obvious forms of power in society,
and therefore any group that has a lot of money to spend, is, by definition,
already a significant part of the power structure. "Outside groups" with money
are never true outside groups.

~~~
nickff
If unlimited campaign spending is so advantageous to the political insiders,
and entrenched interests, then why are they (McCain, Feingold, and other long-
term career politicians) so opposed to it? How often do you see a politician
advocate for something that puts them at a significant disadvantage, and helps
their critics?

~~~
cpeterso
Long time incumbents can assume their position is safe unless there is a well
funded challenger. Incumbents have plenty of air time and name recognition.

~~~
nickff
> _" Long time incumbents can assume their position is safe unless there is a
> well funded challenger."_

You have restated my position quite succinctly; FEC campaign regulations are a
way of preventing "well funded challenger[s]".

------
purephase
I'm frankly surprised that there is any sort of funding shortfall for this
idea. For US-based profitable start-ups or established companies, this is
absolutely in your best interests.

Two issues alone, Net Neutrality and the NSA overreach directly impact your
ability to operate or expand globally and should be of major concern to
smaller US-based technology companies.

It's not like Lessig is some nobody. If anyone has the ability to truly pull
this off, and make change, I'd put my money on him.

~~~
memonkey
Lessig is probably the only honest reason I'm donating. I've been following
his career for quite some time and a lot of the things he's written are
persuasive and coherent and insightful. There are similar SuperPACs (WolfPAC)
but, again, I wouldn't have been super aware of them if it weren't for Lessig
and some of my own research.

~~~
bloodmoney
I've donated $100 three different times. I just got to the point where I have
to do something and this seems like a good start.

------
nardi
If you want less corruption and cronyism in Congress, and you want your voice
heard again in D.C., I honestly think the best thing you can do is give
Lawrence Lessig your money, before the day is over.

------
snide
Can someone more knowledgable give some specific details about their plan?
I've read what I could on their website, but I can't really get a hold of what
the specific platform is, if any parties are involed...etc. For example, they
want to win 5 races. Who would these candidates be? Is pure election reform
their only task?

It's very easy for me to understand the anger. But my pessimism makes me
skeptical of yet another political group asking for money to change politics.

I was very disappointed that their website homepage really didn't list any of
the details or the specifics, it just detailed the anger. It also had the
usual array of celebrity endorsements around that anger. I dunno, at its face
this looks very similar to the splinter group party stuff on both sides.

Again. I'm just not someone super versed on this stuff and am looking for
info. What makes this different and why will this work?

~~~
linksbro
Here is "the plan" from their website. [https://mayday.us/the-
plan/](https://mayday.us/the-plan/)

If you are interested, Republic Lost by Lessig is a great read on the reality
of campaign finance.

~~~
mdaniel
And if you don't feel like shelling out the money, Lessig has posted a PDF of
the book online (presumably under a Creative Commons license, but I didn't
check into it that far as I already own the book)

[http://lesterland.lessig.org/pdf/republic-
lost.pdf](http://lesterland.lessig.org/pdf/republic-lost.pdf)

------
programminggeek
Ron Paul Revolution.

I'm not sure if anyone remembers it, but they were great at raising money
online. They had a lot of good ideas and frankly they were right on a lot of
issues that helped win Obama the election when the rest of the Republican
party was still gunning for more war in the Middle East the public no longer
supported. Oh, and the economy.

Here's what happened...

Even with millions raised, the Republican nomination went to John McCain who
brought us Sarah Palin. Months after a sound defeat, Fox News and Glen Beck
co-opted the Ron Paul/Tea Party movement, which they previously spent 2 years
making fun of, into the corporate political machine that it is now. The Tea
Party of current times has little in common with the Tea Party that tried to
get Ron Paul the nomination, twice.

This is a very long winded way of saying I've seen political movements pop up
online before and they tend to fizzle and die, or have the energy co-opted
into something that is not the same thing at all.

I fully expect if this becomes a big enough deal for some Democrats and
Republicans to once again crow about campaign finance reform (because it
sounds good, just ask John McCain), that it will get co-opted by big money
into somehow reinforcing the current system or otherwise giving big moneu
politics further advantages.

I'm not sure that any of us fully grasp how much money truly controls the
political process at every level. There is so much money it's basically
impossible to expunge it no matter how hard you try.

It's nice to see the excitement around this, even if I don't think it will pan
out.

~~~
robalfonso
I think the issue with this PAC (and others with similar slate of goals) is
the naiveté that if we are able to reform election policy and cutoff unlimited
funding from lobbyists and other 3rd parties that the interests behind that
money just disappear.

These groups still have money and still have an agenda, and they will work to
the very limit of the law (and possibly more) to exercise that agenda. I can
see this pac achieving their goals only to find out the top spenders
dramatically increase their employee bonuses with a wink and a nod as to how
it should be spent. I'm sure they can be more creative than that.

I wish that this reform would work but it won't. I'd rather go after term
limits or combine the two. Its much harder to influence a politician who won't
be around next term.

------
wilg
I just found out about this and immediately donated.

Maybe that's stupid, but I really think this is the fundamental issue facing
America today. If there's even the smallest chance something like this could
be effective I want in.

------
jasonhn9999
I heard that if the July 4th deadline is met, the money will be matched.

Does anyone know who is providing the matching funds?

~~~
frewsxcv
At least for this second round of five million, I don't think they've
announced at this point

------
edavis
Save your money, people.

I'm sorry, but this just seems like another in the long line of Lessig
projects with laudable goals but will ultimately amount to very little.
Remember Rootstrikers?

From MayDay.us:

> The funders of campaigns are holding our democracy hostage. We want to pay
> the ransom and get it back.

This analogy only works if the campaign funders _also see themselves as
holding democracy hostage._ But guess what? They don't see themselves that
way.

The moneyed elites see themselves as exercising their right to free speech on
the issues important to them. And they have the Supreme Court and the House of
Representatives in agreement with them on this issue.

And this is where Lessig errs. As his diagnosis for what ails our democracy is
wrong, his treatment cannot be successful.

\----

Lessig sees our political system as a small cabal of wealthy black hats
thwarting the will of the people while he fights on the side of the white hats
trying to revive small-d democracy in America.

But how do the "black hats" in this scenario see it?

They'll see it as this _other_ moneyed interest group trying to stifle their
First Amendment right to free speech. And they'll fight like hell to prevent
Lessig's group from being successful. They're not going to just "accept the
ransom" and slink back to their mansions.

And because of the terrain Lessig has chosen to fight this on ("Fight money in
politics with more money in politics! Embrace the irony!") we're back to
square one: One group of moneyed interests fighting another group of moneyed
interests. Exciting, right?

Only now, the "white hats" face a distinct disadvantage. The "black hats" can
raise $5 for every $1 raised by the "white hats." Sheldon Adelson can drop
tens of millions like _that_. How do you like them odds?

\----

What's my suggested fix? Well, to quote _The Wire:_ "The game is rigged, but
you cannot lose if you do not play."

Stop trying to beat the wealthy at their own game. Change the game entirely.

Look around, people. The whole system is beyond repair and has been for years.
We're _way_ past the point where a _SuperPAC_ will fix a goddamn thing.

Nothing short of wholesale, violent revolution and a complete re-structuring
of our society and economy will suffice. We have to utterly smash the bastions
of privilege and power if we want any hope of a fair and democratic society in
our lifetime.

Happy Fourth :)

~~~
pyre
> We have to utterly smash the bastions of privilege and power if we want any
> hope of a fair and democratic society in our lifetime.

... then we end up with violent revolutionaries in control. What could
possibly go wrong?

~~~
edavis
Compared to the philosopher kings we have now?

Congress has an 80% disapproval rating. The President rains death from above
via flying robots and secret kill lists. The Supreme Court routinely stacks
the deck in favor of the powerful. Inequality keeps rising and more and more
people keep falling behind.

> ... then we end up with violent revolutionaries in control.

You mean like how the United States itself was founded?

> What could possibly go wrong?

Not sure. Maybe we'll have a lot of parades in 240 years.

~~~
pyre
> You mean like how the United States itself was founded?

Or maybe the Khmer Rouge? When was the last time that a violent upheaval
turned into a peaceful democracy?

[edit: Let's also be honest with ourselves here. The American Revolution did
_not_ overthrow a government. They didn't overthrow the British government.
They drove them out from occupying a far-away land. I think that the American
Revolutionaries would have had a much harder battle if they were attempting to
overthrow the entire British government, even with the support of France.]

> Not sure. Maybe we'll have a lot of parades in 240 years.

The only downside to a violent revolution is 'parades in 240 years?' If you
want to think that a violent revolution of the United States government will
turn out all ponies and rainbows, that's your prerogative, but at least be
honest with yourself about the risks of ending up with a less than desirable
result.

Some less than desirable results:

* Skinheads or some radical fundamentalist Christian group use the chaos to seize power.

* Revolutionaries take a "either you're with us or against us approach." Conscientious objectors like the Quakers or the Mennonites are slaughtered wholesale for refusing to take part / take sides.

* Witch-hunts abound as 'revolutionaries' search out "1%-ers" to hold public executions. Anyone drawing parallels to McCarthy-ism, Nazism, or the Salem Witch Trials is branded a sympathizer and executed as well.

* The US is divided into several smaller nation-states each controlled by groups with competing interests. Years of war, bloodshed, cease-fires, broken cease-fires, border-skirmishes, etc ensue.

* Disruption of the government leads to disruption of the supply-chain feeding modern society with food. Mass starvation ensues.

* The revolution is successful, but the disruption of the US government leads to global economic depression. Foreign-relations suffer severely as the new government, spear-headed by the leaders of the revolution, is viewed as the cause of the depression, and scapegoat for all their suffering. Perhaps said global depression triggers a new, global wave of nationalism & isolationism, global relations nose-dive as a result.

~~~
edavis
Good points on all. Thanks for taking the time to engage, at any rate.

You're right: I'm too sanguine on the possibilities of what "wholesale,
violent revolution" could look like.

I felt after bashing Lessig, it would only be fair to offer my thoughts on the
matter. But I probably should have sat it on overnight and given more thought
to the last third. C'est la vie.

If I could re-calibrate my "suggestions," I would disavow the violence while
still emphasizing that reformers put themselves at a disadvantage when they
try to play this incremental, inside game on the elite's turf.

But, I guess we'll see. I'd love to be proven wrong on this.

------
nathan_f77
I really wish I could donate, but I'm not a permanent resident. This is an
amazing initiative.

