Lawrence Lesssig's Super PAC to end Super PACs met its second goal of 5 million. It may be ironic (using the power of citizen-funded big money to fight the big money of crony capitalists and special interests), but it's making headway.
We launched two crowdfunded campaigns. We met our first $1M goal in only 13 days. That $1M was matched by technology entrepreneurs from all sides of the political debate.
In June, we set an even larger $5M goal, which over 48,500 of you stepped forward to meet.
This discussion has been archived.
No new comments can be posted.
The Fine Print: The following comments are owned by whoever posted them. We are not responsible for them in any way.
(Score: 5, Insightful) by Dunbal on Sunday July 06 2014, @03:28PM
So in America you actually have to pay TWICE for your politicians?
(Score: 5, Funny) by redneckmother on Sunday July 06 2014, @04:50PM
Only the dishonest ones.
(The definition of an honest politician is that once bought, s/he stays bought.)
Mas cerveza por favor.
(Score: 2) by Tork on Sunday July 06 2014, @08:37PM
🏳️🌈 Proud Ally 🏳️🌈
(Score: 2) by Dunbal on Sunday July 06 2014, @09:49PM
No but it's possibly the only country in the world with corrupt politicians who a) claims to be the shining example of freedom in the world and b) actively tries to export this "freedom" to the rest of the world via the threat of trade sanctions or outright war.
(Score: 2) by Tork on Sunday July 06 2014, @09:51PM
🏳️🌈 Proud Ally 🏳️🌈
(Score: 1) by KiloByte on Monday July 07 2014, @12:33AM
There's corruption everywhere, but the US is the only major country where it is legal.
Ceterum censeo systemd esse delendam.
(Score: 2) by Tork on Monday July 07 2014, @01:45AM
🏳️🌈 Proud Ally 🏳️🌈
(Score: 1) by arslan on Monday July 07 2014, @02:44AM
Coming from an openly corrupt 3rd world country, I'd say it is comparatively better. At least you know the devil and the less educated masses aren't conn'ed into some hypocritical patriotic crap about how good their country is and what a shining beacon they are to the rest of humanity.
(Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Monday July 07 2014, @03:38AM
No, it is one of the only countries where you are allowed to talk about it. You can shit on us for our dirty laundry, but we at least air our dirty laundry. A lot of stone casters here (and especially on the green site) are oblivious to their glass houses.
(Score: 4, Interesting) by captain normal on Sunday July 06 2014, @03:59PM
Get money out of politics by using a big pile of money to give to politicians. What could possibly go wrong?
There is nothing on their web site detailing which politicians they would fund with the crowd-sourced funds. What criteria will be used to select the recipients of the funds? Great idea of course, "get money out of politics", but I don't see much substance behind all the hype.
Everyone is entitled to his own opinion, but not to his own facts"- --Daniel Patrick Moynihan--
(Score: 5, Interesting) by opinionated_science on Sunday July 06 2014, @04:38PM
here's an idea. Ban all political contributions from anyone other than citizens. Make the maximum amount contributed be based on a five-year average of some %age of the national median income. Filing a tax return is the minimum to vote.
Corporations are banned from making any contributions to political parties. Lobbying must be done in the public media such as post public advertisements, perhaps whitepapers?
All political parties must have online registration and publication of contributions and expenses (The technology exists to be very accurate with this!).
To further enhance the political system, perhaps policies should be published and made legally binding (how often do politicians change the policy after elected?). Perhaps political parties should be formed around the efficient administration of policies, instead of political dogma?
Rather than getting failed lawyers as politicians, perhaps we will get experts in various fields take a few years off to solve specific problems.
But hey, just my $0.02 (tax deducible)
(Score: 2) by captain normal on Sunday July 06 2014, @06:15PM
I'm in favor of a Constitutional Amendment along the lines of the First Amendment. Something like: "Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of business, or prohibiting the free, honest and harmless exercise thereof."
Everyone is entitled to his own opinion, but not to his own facts"- --Daniel Patrick Moynihan--
(Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Sunday July 06 2014, @08:27PM
> Make the maximum amount contributed be based on a five-year average of some %age of the national median income.
Great. Lets all just make up random crap that ignores the current realities of a SCOTUS that will not permit such a rule. Seriously, what is the point of your post other than to make yourself feel good? Nothing you've proposed has a chance in hell of happening. Lessig, on the other hand, is working within the constraints of reality to try to effect change. Maybe he won't get there. But his proposals have 1000x more chance of making a difference than some random crap that one would expect to hear from a stoner.
> But hey, just my $0.02
And worth every penny.
(Score: 2) by frojack on Sunday July 06 2014, @10:53PM
That statement, and the statement in the summary that says they are "Making Headway" is high on my BS meter, and low on details.
As far as I can see, there isn't a shred of evidence of any success, other than collecting pocket change.
There doesn't even seem to be a coherent plan of action, and the money seems destined to be squandered away trying to elect candidates pledging parsimony in the teeth of a tidal wave of big-money interests.
Ballot initiatives are the only way to go, yet they want to prop up yet more delusional candidates knowing full well there isn't mucn chance any of them will get elected, and even less chance they will stick to their guns if they do.
Until a means to choke off corporate political contributions is found, this goes nowhere.
No, you are mistaken. I've always had this sig.
(Score: 1, Informative) by Anonymous Coward on Monday July 07 2014, @12:43AM
> As far as I can see, there isn't a shred of evidence of any success, other than collecting pocket change.
Are you seriously complaining that because he hasn't succeeded yet he shouldn't start trying to succeed? WTF man?
> There doesn't even seem to be a coherent plan of action,
The Plan [mayday.us]
> Until a means to choke off corporate political contributions is found, this goes nowhere.
All ears dude. All fuckin ears. Or is the phrase "ballot initiatives" what passes for a coherent plan of action in your mind?
(Score: 2, Informative) by danaris on Sunday July 06 2014, @10:52PM
Yes, all that is a great idea; the problem is how to get politicians to enact it.
This is what Mayday is all about. Fund the election of politicians who will support measures like this. Because that's the only way to get it done.
You and I and our 10,000 geek friends can talk about various common-sense campaign finance reforms, but until there are actual sitting Congresspeople willing to enact such reforms, we're just spitting in the wind. And like it or not, the way to get Congresspeople who are willing to do the stuff you want them to do—whatever that stuff may be—is with money.
Dan Aris
(Score: 2) by frojack on Sunday July 06 2014, @10:58PM
You can't get these types of people elected to congress at all, and if you do you can't expect them to remain committed to this cause long enough to become the majority.
A far better solution is to join forces with The Convention of States movement, where washington politicians don't have a say. http://conventionofstates.com/ [conventionofstates.com]
No, you are mistaken. I've always had this sig.
(Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Monday July 07 2014, @12:54AM
> A far better solution is to join forces with The Convention of States movement,
Quick skim of the "news" (not press links about themselves, but "news") on that site reveals them to be all about the conservatives. They are even linking to interviews on Glen Beck's TheBlaze.com. If they are anything other than yet another group of ideologues blinded by the light of their own partisanship they'll never get a chance to show it because you just don't recover from that kind of tactical stupidity.
(Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Monday July 07 2014, @01:01AM
> All political parties must have online registration and publication of contributions and expenses (The technology exists to be very accurate with this!)
That's ridiculously naive. You know that tens to hundreds of dollars spent on 'political' ads don't go through political parties, right? They don't name names, they just spin stories. Where are you going to draw the line? Anywhere you draw it, I guarantee the guys with the money will figure out how to skirt it.
All this shit about the IRS - you know it is about so 501(c)4 "social welfare" groups that are technically forbidden from campaigning, right? Just one more example of how money finds a way to skirt the rules.
(Score: 3, Interesting) by opinionated_science on Monday July 07 2014, @01:33PM
please report as non-AC to be taken seriously. I will however, respond, as it is a good point that has occured to me.
The point about contributions only being legal from citizens, addresses the lobbying via the back door. If you think about it, if a congressperson or senator is taking cash from any special interest, that is by definition going to work against you(the voter).
Since all contributions are tied to income tax (the point about median is a suggestion -basically pick some number that captures the most people), the citizens that vote, assign contributions on their 1040 or something similar. You know that box for presidential elections? make something like that for parties/candidates. I am surer smarter people than I can think of a practical way of doing this.
Finally, the point about campaigning. It doesnt matter if the airwaves and media are full of candidates shouting for themselves or "social welfare" groups, so long as it is in public - who cares. But by removing the incentive to "bribe" the candidate directly, it may lead to a less obviously corrupt system.
As I said $0.02...
(Score: 1) by pyg on Monday July 07 2014, @02:59AM
I would vote yes.
(Score: 3, Informative) by Max Hyre on Sunday July 06 2014, @07:05PM
Take a look at their plan [mayday.us]. Basically, it a 2014 pilot program to go into five districts and elect candidates who sign on to meaningful reform, and show that that pledge swung the race. Put into full production in 2016 to get 60 Senators and 218 Representatives who'll back it. Check out their FAQ [mayday.us] for some more nuts-and-bolts of running the organization and campaign.
They raised over $1,000,000 in less than one day! That says to me that there are a lot of citizens willing to support this movement. Polls show over 90% of citizens believe money in politics is hurting the country. But, an eqally large a percentage of them believe there's nothing to be done about it. I was one of those a few days ago. The possible viability of Mayday.us's plan persuaded me to donate, early on the Fourth, and the success in meeting the goal gave me some hope back.
Read their position papers, listen to the podcasts, and ask yourself whether this is worth taking a risk on.
</rabble-rousing>
(Score: 2) by marcello_dl on Sunday July 06 2014, @07:15PM
Well, the GPL uses copyright to keep stuff shareable, such stunts work, sometimes.
According to my model of "how things work", this experiment will fail, yet it is a very valuable experiment because it will teach that "money rules the world" is simply what people that rule with money want the rest to believe. The real objective is control and it won't be exercised by making a larger offer of imaginary stuff like money is. Of course I sure want to be wrong on this one.
(Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Sunday July 06 2014, @10:03PM
> Get money out of politics by using a big pile of money to give to politicians.
You have misunderstood his goals. The website clearly says, "reduce the influence of money in politics." That's vastly different from "get money out of politics."
The SCOTUS has said you can't get money out of politics because money is speech. Given that constraint, the next best option is to bring your own money so that the influence of the 1% is the same as the influence of the 99%. That's the intent here. He's not being stupid, he's working within the limits set by the SCOTUS.
You may think the limits are stupid, but he can't do anything about them. If you think you can convince the SCOTUS that money is not speech, then you are encouraged to try.
(Score: 3, Insightful) by hash14 on Sunday July 06 2014, @04:02PM
So this [theonion.com] is actually going to happen now?
(Score: 1, Redundant) by Jaruzel on Sunday July 06 2014, @07:34PM
PAC, what the hell is that? Applying a technology slant, I went with a Proxy Auto Config [wikipedia.org] file, quite surprised upon clicking the link I find out it's a 'Political Action Committee' - whatever one of those is...
Please don't assume that everyone knows what all the three letter acronyms are when submitting summaries :)
-Jar
This is my opinion, there are many others, but this one is mine.
(Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Sunday July 06 2014, @08:32PM
If you don't know what a PAC is, this story isn't for you in the first place.
Like a story about RAM densities would be beyond the reach of someone who doesn't know what RAM is.
(Score: 2) by aristarchus on Sunday July 06 2014, @08:39PM
I, for one, am not interested in stories about male sheep. Seriously. Classic video games where protagonists consume dots, now that is more my cup of tea! TMI on the TLAs!
(Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Sunday July 06 2014, @11:14PM
Well, in that case the summary should start with "only relevant to USA citizens". Or put a stars and stripes logo in the right top corner, as that other site used to do.
I had a look at the website, it did not make much sense to me as a non-american. So I looked at their FAQ and at the wikipedia article on PACs. Did I understand correctly that it is a legal method of bribing US politicians?
(Score: 3, Insightful) by Max Hyre on Sunday July 06 2014, @11:21PM
(Score: 1) by Max Hyre on Sunday July 06 2014, @11:23PM
got-----------------^
Dammit, the one time I think it's so simple that I don't need to preview it.
(Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Sunday July 06 2014, @11:43PM
> Well, in that case the summary should start with "only relevant to USA citizens".
No it shouldn't -- plenty of non-US citizens are aware of what PACs are and how they affect global US policy and tons of US citizens are too politically unsophisticated to have a meaningful opinion about the role of PACs.