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.
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.
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.
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.
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.
Republic, Lost[0] is a really good read on this (even if it is by Lessig himself). He lays out how he would see the process working, I believe at the Presidential level. The basic idea is running on a platform that promises change as well as a commitment to step down once said change is accomplished. With the amount of money already wrapped up in politics (especially between two large parties), it strikes me as a tough sales pitch for either party's old guard.
To your point about there not being enough money in politics: I'd agree with you if money existed in a vacuum for its own sake. The question should arguably be is there enough/too much purchasable influence in politics.
Note that the $6 billion is for a Presidential election year. The last mid-term Congressional year (2010) was $4 billion. The way these are accounted, there is no election spending for 2009 or 2011 (spending for 2009 is counted towards the 2010 election). Thus, we're talking about $2.5 billion per year, or less than Americans spend each year on scented candles.
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.
This is very specifically about campaign finance reform, not about "fixing broken government". Their thesis is that no fix can happen while politicians are forced to spend their time catering to very rich folks in order to keep their jobs, and this is meant to help us towards a solution.
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.
> 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.
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.
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.
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.
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.
jgj|11 years ago
[1] http://www.reddit.com/r/IAmA/comments/29nq9p/lawrence_lessig...
snowwrestler|11 years ago
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|11 years ago
fleitz|11 years ago
The entire point of government is to figure out what those statements really mean...
robrenaud|11 years ago
twoodfin|11 years ago
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...
BrandonMarc|11 years ago
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?!
skyebook|11 years ago
To your point about there not being enough money in politics: I'd agree with you if money existed in a vacuum for its own sake. The question should arguably be is there enough/too much purchasable influence in politics.
[0]http://republic.lessig.org
rayiner|11 years ago
fleitz|11 years ago
What politician isn't for fixing broken government?
Who is standing up for broken government?
What congress isn't committed to fundamental reform?
BrandonMarc|11 years ago
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.
ericd|11 years ago
snowwrestler|11 years ago
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|11 years ago
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.
viggity|11 years ago
vijayr|11 years ago
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|11 years ago
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|11 years ago
fleitz|11 years ago
sp332|11 years ago
unknown|11 years ago
[deleted]
nardi|11 years ago
trybaj|11 years ago
dang|11 years ago
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|11 years ago