
Matt Cutts and other tech donors launch CounterPAC - jim-greer
http://www.washingtonpost.com/blogs/post-politics/wp/2014/07/31/yet-another-super-pac-is-using-big-money-to-take-on-big-money/
======
jeremyt
Considering what recently happened at Mozilla, and other examples where we see
protesters showing up at people's private homes, I oppose this effort.

I used to think that disclosure was the answer when it came to campaign-
finance reform: let anybody give as much as they want as long as it's publicly
disclosed.

But now that people can lose their job because of their political views, I'm
much more reluctant to speak out in favor of or donate to causes I believe in.
Hell, I'm afraid to even say what I'm saying right now because it'll put me on
record publicly opposing Matt Cutts, who can basically make or break any
future companies I participate in that rely on SEO as a strategy.

I think people should be able to donate to causes anonymously without worrying
about retaliation..

~~~
SquareWheel
>Hell, I'm afraid to even say what I'm saying right now because it'll put me
on record publicly opposing Matt Cutts, who can basically make or break any
future companies I participate in that rely on SEO as a strategy.

You're basically making the claim that Google will manually take action on
sites that they don't like, something which I've never seen any evidence for,
and you haven't provided any.

~~~
jeremyt
No, I'm making the claim that if you get in trouble with SEO - even if it's an
honest mistake - being on the good side of the Google team can mean the
difference between your company surviving or dying.

I can point to rap genius as a public example (and that wasn't even an honest
mistake), but I've seen this happen myself and I've talked to a number of
people who have admitted that Matt Cutts or someone on the search team
personally intervened in their issue.

To clarify: I'm not saying anyone is taking action against people they don't
like, I'm saying that it's very easy to not take action to help people you
don't like.

~~~
wldcordeiro
Rap Genius was actively gaming the system at the time so that isn't a worthy
example.

~~~
jeremyt
Rap genius was penalized, but then the penalty was quietly lifted after a
couple months. Tell me a less well-connected company would've gotten such a
deal.

------
eurleif
>Candidates who sign the CounterPAC Pledge must give 50 percent of any money
spent on their behalf by a group with undisclosed donors to a charity of their
opponent's choice.

This sounds like it could be abused. If I'm rich enough, what's to stop me
from running a bad ad for a candidate I don't like as a way to force them to
donate all their money to charity?

~~~
jim-greer
Good question - we call this the "sham ad" problem. If an ad is of
questionable origin and effectiveness, we'll investigate and even focus test
it to see if it sways opinion. We have a group of 3 independent commissioners
who would then vote on how to proceed. They are:

\- Lawrence Lessig (Harvard, Creative Commons, MayDAY Pac) \- Richard Painter
(George W. Bush's ethics czar) \- Buddy Roemer (former Governor of Louisiana,
has been both a D and an R)

~~~
wdewind
Wow those are three highly politicized choices. I'd like to say they balance
each other out, but Roemer is really an R, and acted like one when he was a D
in LA. When Bush's Ethics Czar is the moderate of the bunch there are issues.

I have to say that while I know it's difficult to find people qualified for
such a job who don't have huge political ties, it's disappointing to see such
heavily biased people be on a committee to make decisions like that.

~~~
jim-greer
Richard Painter was not just Bush's ethics czar, but is a very respected law
professor and ethicist. You can read some of his publications to get a better
sense of him:

[http://www.law.umn.edu/facultyprofiles/painterr.html](http://www.law.umn.edu/facultyprofiles/painterr.html)
[http://wisconsinlawreview.org/wp-content/files/1-Nagy-
Painte...](http://wisconsinlawreview.org/wp-content/files/1-Nagy-Painter.pdf)

Buddy Roemer is also not an ideologue by any means.

~~~
jtbigwoo
I think the criticism is reasonable, though.

Roemer has been a self-declared Republican for 23 years. Painter seems
reasonable and thoughtful, but when making political judgements it's tough to
overlook his connection to the Bush administration. Centrist and liberal
observers can be forgiven for being suspicious of a committee with two
Republicans and a techno-liberal.

I don't envy the people who had to organize this, by the way. Either you set
up an odd-numbered panel and expect a bunch of criticism or you setup a even-
numbered panel and prepare yourself for stalemates and ineffectiveness. (I
suppose you could have a very large odd-numbered panel and hope that the law
of averages helps you remain balanced.)

------
sylvinus
Thanks Jim for participating here. Can you explain the links between MaydayPAC
and CounterPAC, their degree of cooperation and what makes them different?
Thanks!

PS: Congrats for the hard work you're doing.

~~~
jim-greer
I'm actually on the board of MayDay PAC as well, but they are separate
efforts. MayDay is trying to elect pro-reform candidates.

CounterPAC actually doesn't care what views a candidate holds. We're 100%
focused on the way they run their race. We're running ads calling on
candidates to sign a legally binding pledge. If any group spends secret money
on candidate's behalf, that candidate will donate from their campaign to a
charity of their opponent's choice.

MayDay has to pick sides. CounterPAC is happy to work with anyone who will run
their race cleanly and transparently, even if they are backed by the Koch
brothers or others - as long as their backers aren't anonymous.

~~~
sylvinus
Got it, thanks!

------
jgalt212
Fighting fire with fire is always tricky, but something has to be done.

Good luck to them.

------
outside1234
Isn't Matt Cutts supposed to be on sabbatical? :)

