Larry Lessig is trying to start a SuperPAC dedicated to reforming campaign finance laws. He's using a crowd-funding approach with matching levels at the $1M and $5M marks. After less than a week, the project is already halfway to the $1M milestone.
This discussion has been archived.
No new comments can be posted.
Campaign Finance Law Reform SuperPAC Reaches $500,000 in 5 Days
|
Log In/Create an Account
| Top
| 30 comments
| Search Discussion
The Fine Print: The following comments are owned by whoever posted them. We are not responsible for them in any way.
(Score: 3, Interesting) by bob_super on Wednesday May 07 2014, @09:52PM
The elected people do not want to change the campaign finance law under which they got elected and will be at 99%.
The supreme court has made clear that it considers money as free speech, and therefore no limitations can exist (the only ones left are the ones they haven't addressed yet).
The president just doesn't have the balls to fight for change.
.
You could rename this kickstarter as "pay a DC lobbyist for a year or two". That's pretty much the only outcome to be expected.
(Score: 2) by The Mighty Buzzard on Wednesday May 07 2014, @09:55PM
My rights don't end where your fear begins.
(Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Wednesday May 07 2014, @10:21PM
"The president just doesn't have the balls to fight for change."
Why would he? The current president has benefitted from big money and corporate contributions more than any other candidate in history, shattering the old record he set when he ran against the guy who authored Campaign Finance Reform back in 2008. He has single handedly changed politics by turning the Democratic Party of America into the party of the cultural elites and the rich. (for some perspective, the last big shift in party demographics was when the South became Republican in the 1960's...and before that, when the Republicans swapped and became conservative and the Democrats became progressive in the 1930's).
(Score: 3, Insightful) by lhsi on Wednesday May 07 2014, @09:53PM
What on earth is a super pac? Wikipedia has this but that doesn't really explain it.
Somewhat disappointed to find out it wasn't a pac man superhero.
(Score: 2) by fliptop on Wednesday May 07 2014, @09:59PM
As I understand it, candidates can work w/ a PAC and have a hand in determining what the money that's raised is spent on. Contributions are limited and candidates often have their own PACs.
A SuperPAC has no limits on contributions, but candidates are not allowed to interact w/ the principals that run it.
Our Constitution was made only for a moral and religious people. It is wholly inadequate to the government of any other.
(Score: 2) by bucc5062 on Wednesday May 07 2014, @10:10PM
"but candidates are not allowed to directly interact w/ the principals that run it." ftfy. As a case in New York has shown, close proximity of the Super PAC, as in right next door and the previous owner of the Super PAC have nothing in common with the involvement of the politician's campaign...riiiiiight....
The more things change, the more they look the same
(Score: 2) by fliptop on Wednesday May 07 2014, @10:17PM
If they were honest, they wouldn't be a politician.
Our Constitution was made only for a moral and religious people. It is wholly inadequate to the government of any other.
(Score: 2) by frojack on Wednesday May 07 2014, @11:34PM
But, don't you find it odd that Lessig is using the EXACT same TOOLS (pacs) that he would so love to get rid of?
It would seem that removing the rights of corporations to be treated like people (with regard to everything but voting and holding office) would be more likely to succeed, and less "two faced".
No, you are mistaken. I've always had this sig.
(Score: 4, Insightful) by Angry Jesus on Wednesday May 07 2014, @11:57PM
> But, don't you find it odd that Lessig is using the EXACT same TOOLS (pacs) that he would so love to get rid of?
The people of Occupy are hypocrites for using smart phones to coordinate their protests about excessive corporate power because smart phones are made by megacorps.
The GPL shouldn't depend on copyright because its goal is to subvert copyright.
There is always someone who thinks that the people who are actually doing something to improve the situation aren't doing it "the right way." Given that the problem in all these cases is misuse of power, it only makes sense to use the most powerful tools available to make the change - otherwise you'd be hamstringing yourself.
(Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Thursday May 08 2014, @08:31AM
Yeah sure, and since the Taliban used weapons in Afghanistan, how could the military dare to give the soldiers they sent there weapons as well! Surely instead taking away the weapons from the Taliban would have been the better solution, right? </sarcasm>
(Score: 1) by hoochiecoochieman on Thursday May 08 2014, @10:19AM
Well, the US shouldn't have given them weapons in the first place. But I'm pretty sure at the time someone said "what could possibly go wrong?"
(Score: 1) by hoochiecoochieman on Thursday May 08 2014, @10:22AM
By "them" I mean the Taliban, of course.
(Score: 2) by frojack on Thursday May 08 2014, @05:08PM
Pretty much a specious, nonsense argument.
Point is, Lessig is raging against superpacs. He wants them banned from politics.
His argument is: After I've had my say, the rest of you just shut up.
Everyone is quick to criticize when this tactic is used elsewhere:
Destroy the village to save the village,
Destroy American freedoms to protect freedom,
Cops violating the law to Catch Criminals.
Breaking windows to keep Glaziers in business.
Suddenly, when the shoe is on the other foot, its ok.
Same shit, different day.
New boss, just like the old boss.
No, you are mistaken. I've always had this sig.
(Score: 2) by The Mighty Buzzard on Wednesday May 07 2014, @09:59PM
My rights don't end where your fear begins.
(Score: 1) by tranquilidad on Wednesday May 07 2014, @10:13PM
If you drill down and have a look at some of the bills they are creating an environment that will make their own incumbency the Super PAC for re-election.
In one case cited, if a candidate forgoes contributions over $50 then the government will give a grant at a rate of a 9:1 match - the $50 contribution becomes a $500 contribution. The money is still there but it comes from taxes.
I see some major problems with this:
1) My tax dollars are now going to support the free speech of someone I don't want to see in office - all for the fairness of free speech I will have to financially support speech with which I disagree.
2) Less than 50% of the American public pays Federal income taxes. If we go with the popular meme that we should only tax the rich and tax the rich even more then we are essentially saying the rich must pay taxes in order to support the campaigns and speech of people who want to tax them more; an ingenious plot, indeed.
3) A PAC, super or otherwise, is simply a group of people who get together and want to pool their money for the sake of efficiency. If me and my friend Joe American decide we want to pool our money to buy a "louder" ad that neither one of us can afford on our own then we become a PAC. If we decide to make a contribution to a candidate then that candidate is no longer eligible for a matching grant. Ultimately, this is a plan to stifle the speech of those who decide to organize their voices and limit political speech to the candidates themselves. Those candidates who are better known (incumbents) are more likely to get a larger number of individual donors, small or otherwise, with the larger grants going to the candidate who has the larger number of contributions.
People want to talk about "ending the corruption" by removing money from political campaigns. One makes a choice between buying a cup of coffee or making a campaign contribution. One makes a choice if they want to work harder in order to make more to make a political contribution.
These proposals are designed to reward the incumbent power base, eliminate speech with which the sponsors disagree and, ultimately, quiet dissenting voices.
(Score: 3, Informative) by Angry Jesus on Wednesday May 07 2014, @10:42PM
> In one case cited, if a candidate forgoes contributions over $50 then the government will give a grant at a rate
> of a 9:1 match - the $50 contribution becomes a $500 contribution. The money is still there but it comes from taxes.
Lessig is smart enough to realize that "removing money from political campaigns" will never happen. His approach is more along the lines of recognizing that money in campaigns has two functions:
(1) To support a candidate that represents your interests (good - free speech)
(2) To purchase a candidate's support of your interests (bad - bribery)
In the current environment where limitations on campaign contributions are considered limitations on (1) free speech he's taking the opposite tact of the laws that the SCOTUS has been striking down. Instead of limiting the speech of the rich, the 9:1 campaign matching is about amplifying the speech of regular citizens. While the first amendment requires that government not abridge freedom of speech, it does not prevent the government from amplifying speech (other than religious speech) as long as it does not discriminate. The goal is to preserve the free-speech (1) part of campaign contributions while reducing the bribery (2) part of campaign contributions.
(Score: 3, Insightful) by bob_super on Wednesday May 07 2014, @11:06PM
>1) My tax dollars are now going to support the free speech of someone
> I don't want to see in office - all for the fairness of free speech
> I will have to financially support speech with which I disagree.
Already happens in most places. People running campaigns above a certain vote threshold get money from the governments.
Note that you financially support the one you agree with as much as the other one. Would you complain if your candidate was outspent 10 to 1, 100 to 1?
> 2) Less than 50% of the American public pays Federal income taxes. (...)
> support the campaigns and speech of people who want to tax them more; an ingenious plot, indeed.
Once again, anyone who pays any tax would equally support candidates regardless of whether they promise tax raises or cuts. Joe-six-pack who pays $500 is taxes will support someone willing to cut the government programs he needs to survive, which is worse than millionaires supporting people who want to tax them more. Don't chose one side.
And your worst:
> One makes a choice if they want to work harder in order to make more to
> make a political contribution.
You may want to get out of your privileged life and check reality.
Campaign contributions are made with disposable income, which is not highly abundant in half the population.
.
Why don't you go one step further suggest that those who can't get involved in politics shouldn't be voting at all? Maybe, to make things fair, people should have to give to a campaign before they vote, right? How come those people who don't pay taxes get to vote anyway, what kind of democracy is that?
Am I exaggerating? Nope, just extrapolating your opinion that those who represent the people should be catering to those who can afford to give them money...
(Score: 1) by tranquilidad on Wednesday May 07 2014, @11:45PM
What you think is my worst one, working harder to make a political contribution ignores the fungibility of assets - whether it's volunteering for a political campaign or contributing to a political campaign.
Shall we start valuing a person's contribution of time to a political campaign based on the value of their time? Does a $200/hour lawyer who is more articulate than a $10/hour store clerk have to value his speech or his voluntary efforts to a campaign differently? "Hey, that lawyer's smarter than that store clerk how dare he use logic in presenting his case?"
The issue is that once society starts deciding what constitutes speech and what constitutes "evil money" used to promote an idea we lose control of what can and can't be said.
Again I ask, why does my getting together with a friend in order to more efficiently amplify our speech become evil? If it's not evil when I get together with my friend to do that then how many of my friends do I have to get together to cross the threshold of evilness? That is, after all what a PAC is.
No government money should be spent for campaigning.
I don't care if my candidate is outspent 1,000,000:1 as long as no government money was spent in supporting candidates to whom I'm opposed.
Whether or not it happens in most places, forcing me to use my money to promote a candidate with whom I disagree is wrong. Whether it's incumbents under the rubric of "campaign reform" or union dues directed. (Companies who use my money to support causes with which I disagree are different because I can choose to do business elsewhere.)
(Score: 2) by Angry Jesus on Thursday May 08 2014, @12:02AM
> I don't care if my candidate is outspent 1,000,000:1 as long as no government money
> was spent in supporting candidates to whom I'm opposed.
Then think of it another way. The tax money isn't about supporting candidates you oppose, it is about supporting an egalitarian political process which is a core requirement for a functioning democracy. Now, if you don't actually want a democracy, then sure, it's totally wrong to spend taxes this way.
(Score: 1) by tranquilidad on Thursday May 08 2014, @12:17AM
Hardly a logical conclusion that being opposed to taxes being spent to promote political speech equates to an opposition to democracy.
Democracy requires a free and open market of ideas. That market hardly requires government taxes spent on the promotion of any particular idea or even all ideas in order to exist.
(Score: 2) by Angry Jesus on Thursday May 08 2014, @12:25AM
> Hardly a logical conclusion that being opposed to taxes being spent to promote political speech
> equates to an opposition to democracy.
+1 Overly broad generalization to mis-characterize the argument.
> Democracy requires a free and open market of ideas. That market hardly requires government taxes
> spent on the promotion of any particular idea or even all ideas in order to exist.
Free markets require protection from monopolistic forces. If you can't restrain the monopolies, then all you are left with is to boost the little guys.
(Score: 2) by bob_super on Thursday May 08 2014, @12:29AM
That's an easy one. The threshold of "evil money" is "any money".
Because the way humans work, anyone who gives money expects a return on it. But representative democracy is about people elected to represent their whole district/state/country, not just pandering to those who gave or might give money again.
They may not agree with the 49.9% of the electorate who voted for the other guy, but they are still supposed to represent them equally. With all the money flowing around, some people are a lot more equal than others. And more and more often, these highly equal people do not even vote in that area.
.
Thanks to fungibility, there is no easy answer; you are correct.
But a basic requirement in not enough countries is "equal time" on the major media, and somewhat equal campaign funds provided to the candidates by the state under the condition that they qualify for the race (and sometimes that they gather a minimum threshold of the votes).
People are supposed to get exposed to the candidates in the same amount, and decide on quality over quantity.
That doesn't prevent incumbent advantage and disparity of exposure, but it's a lot better than the "money (indirectly) buys votes" presented by the great US system.
.
But hey, my salary was indirectly paid for a while by all those TV ads, and I have mostly lived on places where 99% of elections are decided before the ballots get printed, so who am I to complain?
(Score: 1) by Leebert on Thursday May 08 2014, @01:17AM
I genuinely do not understand this. How exactly am I to gather a minimum threshold of votes without campaigning, which in turn requires money? And would my tax money be used to fund, say, a Nazi candidate [wikipedia.org]?
By the way, you do realize that you don't need to separate paragraphs with periods, right?
(Score: 2) by dry on Thursday May 08 2014, @06:10AM
Might as well take it further, why should people get tax deductions for donating money to politicians and why shouldn't politicians pay taxes on donated money. If someone gave me a million dollars, the tax man would expect a cut.
(Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Thursday May 08 2014, @11:40AM
You are making the Tom Roberts argument. The problem is that real organizations of "little fish" just don't happen in practice. In order to get to "important" funding levels, you need a lot of money and the demographics of past election funding demonstrates pretty clearly that there's no more than 27,000 people in the country who make "important" level contributions of $10k+. To the extent it's possible, if you look at SuperPAC funding, you'll find that fewer than 200 people account for the majority of their income, even though they are supposed to be the very structure that facilitates pollyanna's broad, grass-roots organization. In reality, the SuperPACs turn out to be a way to mask the agendas of people like Sheldon Adelson or the Koch brothers behind an illusion of popular organization.
It's like "separate but equal," it may sound like a fine idea, in theory, but when you look at the implementation, subject to pre-existing power imbalances, it turns out to be a total crock.
(Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Thursday May 08 2014, @11:25AM
No, your tax dollars are going to prevent speakers you disagree with from buying a candidate you disagree with into office.
Less than 0.5 percent of the U.S. population contributed $200 or more to federal candidates in 2008. This is the single most important statistic to remember when talking about campaign finance. Candidates are currently pandering to less than 0.5% of the population. All of that 0.5% are within the 50% that pay federal income tax. The other 95.5% of the population believes they can't make a contribution big enough to "count." If you transfer campaign funding from the 0.5% to the 50%, then the 50% should feel like they have the right to communicate with their representatives. This is the point: if candidates are only going to listen to contributors, then we need to make the pool of contributors look more like their actual constituencies.
This is why presidential candidates no longer accept public financing. Of course, the notion that it might be you and a couple of your buddies who put together an organization capable of competing on that level is pretty ludicrous. Remember that 0.5% give $200 number? To get to $1M through a grass roots organization of $20 needs 50,000 people, and $1M is nothing in this arena. The big individuals contribute multiple millions. So, in practice, the argument for "grass roots pooling of individual donors" is really an argument for astroturf organizations masking the agenda of superdonors behind a wall of straw donors.
This, by the way, is the real reason that Lessig's initiative is doomed to fail. Their stretch goal is $5M. Americans for Prosperity spent somewhere between $36M (presidential) and $122M (all races) in 2012.
That's ridiculous. Nobody makes political contributions because everybody knows they only "count" if they're four or five figures. No one's talking about removing money from political campaigns: they're talking about lowering the threshold of noticeable contributions to where a reasonable portion of the population could choose to forgo their daily coffee for a month and contribute to political dialog. Under the current system, most people feel that they would have to forgo their mortgage payment for several months to be part of the dialog.
(Score: 1) by shortscreen on Wednesday May 07 2014, @11:42PM
Discussions about the influence of money in politics would do better to cover exactly what that money is ultimately spent on and who profits from it.
The assumption seems to be that more campaign money buys more political ads, and that these ads have enough sway over voters to change election outcomes. Hence, elected officials' heavy dependence on campaign cash to get and keep their jobs, and their dependence on wealthy donors.
Lessig wants to use campaign cash to push for laws that effectively restrict spending on political ads. I wonder if the publishers of these ads will go along with this plan to cut down their own revenue stream.
Corporate media is yet one more beneficiary (and supporter) of the status quo.
(Score: 1) by SpockLogic on Thursday May 08 2014, @12:54AM
Contributions to candidates for office should be limited from only those who can vote in that particular constituency. All political donations must be public record. Sunshine is the best disinfection.
Overreacting is one thing, sticking your head up your ass hoping the problem goes away is another - edIII
(Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Thursday May 08 2014, @03:18PM
After watching and being involved in American politics for decades upon decades I believe the only way to fix the money/politics problem that is endemic to the American culture, is to prohibit private money from politics. All money spent on politics should be publicly funded, and that funding should be very small, and equal across all candidates. I think efforts to rererewrite the same old laws over and over again will lead to exactly what has happened every other time they were rererewritten, and it's time for something different.
(Score: 2) by sgleysti on Friday May 09 2014, @03:44AM
That's what this is about! They're using private funding to push candidates that will remove private money from elections permanently. I donated; I think it's brilliant. Political things almost assuredly cause me to be disappointed, but this one actually looks like the right way forward.