27 ms·

I believe that is how campaigns were financed originally more or less [1] and then it was reformed because it was causing problems. Let us not repeat history.

by rpedela 11y ago

I believe that is how campaigns were financed originally more or less [1] and then it was reformed because it was causing problems. Let us not repeat history. 1. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Campaign_finance_reform_in_the_United_States https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Campaign_finance_reform_in_the...

jessaustin 11y ago
Do you really think we're better off now than we were in the 1970s?
- rpedela 11y ago
  I dont know if we are or not, but that isnt the point. The point is that prior to the reforms, campaign finance was problematic. Since it is still a problem, I would say the reforms didnt fix the problem completely if at all. Therefore we need another, better reform rather than going backwards in my opinion.
  - jessaustin 11y ago
    If you don't know why reform didn't fix the problem, and you propose even more reform, that is very much to the point. We're deep in the hole already, and you're ordering more shovels.
    - rpedela 11y ago
      Let us use a CS analogy. There is a critical bug A and solution B does not completely fix the problem. What do you do? 1. Throw your hands up and remove the imperfect solution. 2. Leave it alone because solution B partially fixes the problem. 3. Find solution C which completely solves the problem. I hope you would pick #3 like all great engineers would.
      - jessaustin 11y ago
        At the risk of engaging in activity that Neal Stephenson would consider "undignified", I'm going to criticize this analogy, and offer a different one. No government has ever had the command over its subjects that a programmer has over the components of a computer. Human societies are extremely nonlinear and resistant to arbitrary commands. Thus seemingly simple laws, like an alcohol prohibition, lead to wildly flawed results. Political advertising is even more closely coupled with other aspects of the system than is drinking alcohol. It's not a surprise that attempts to control political advertising of the naive, "we'll make a law against it" variety have failed to achieve their goals. They already tried using your analogy, and it didn't work. Instead, I'd suggest the process of A/B testing as a potentially insightful analogy. It's a bit of a dark art, but in general we can say that after injecting orange into the color scheme on the site, and finding that CTR drops 30% as a result, the next step is not to make the color scheme completely orange. Lessig needs to go back to the drawing board. He wants to fight corruption, and on that point I agree with him. He fixates on overturning Citizens United, which had precisely nothing to do with corruption, and on that point I think he suffers a failure of imagination.
        rpedela 11y ago
        > At the risk of engaging in activity that Neal Stephenson would consider "undignified", I'm going to criticize this analogy, and offer a different one. I dont understand the reference. Can you elaborate?
        jessaustin 11y ago
        Long ago Neal Stephenson wrote a long rambling meditation on operating systems called In the Beginning Was the Command Line. At one point he compared Unix to the Hole Hawg by Milwaukee Tool, and found that other OSes were like Black & Decker toys in comparison. Nathan Myhrvold (later of Intellectual Ventures infamy, but then with M$) was moved to send him a different interpretation of the drill analogy. In the second edition of ItBWtCL (which edition it seems is not online in any form), Stephenson mentioned Myhrvold's disagreement, but declined to compare the analogies in any detailed way, considering such an exercise undignified.
nickff 11y ago
Do you believe that a small number of individuals providing most of the campaign funding is the problem, or do you believe that a concentrated donor base creates worse outcomes in government? Your citation describes the concentrated donor base, but does not make any attempt to demonstrate that it has negative consequences (in addition to being of disputed factual accuracy). If campaign spending was reduced, and this increased the effect of public opinion on the government, it is likely that government would be worse.[1] [1] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/The_Myth_of_the_Rational_Voter https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/The_Myth_of_the_Rational_Voter
- rpedela 11y ago
  It isnt really about the amount of campaign spending for me. I would be okay with 10x more spending. I personally dont like that the majority of contributions come from a relatively small number of people or organizations. I would like the rules changed so that they are more egalitarian. One possible solution is only individuals (no companies, PACs, organizations) can contribute up to $100 per candidate. And the money comes from federal taxes rather than people spending from their wallets directly. You could argue that whoever gets the most money in this system will also win the election because people are essentially voting with their wallets. And even poor people can participate which is the reason for the federal taxes. As far as governing, if something like that was the system then politicians would hopefully feel more free to do what they think is right rather than what they think will appease their donors. Even if that doesn't turn out to be true, I still think it is a good thing to make campaign finance more egalitarian because it eliminates one potential source of corruption.
  - nickff 11y ago
    The first two of your paragraphs about your feelings are completely irrelevant to this policy discussion, though I understand they are of great importance to you. Your last point is interesting because you seem to prioritize elimination of donor influence. I on the other hand, am ambivalent when it comes to the prevalence of donor influence, and would only be inclined to minimize donor influence if it had a negative impact on governance. Caplan makes the point that political 'shirking', and non-voting both improve governmental results. Do you prioritize involvement of the citizenry in poltics over governmental outcomes (i.e. the good of the people)?

by rpedela 11y ago

jessaustin 11y ago

Do you really think we're better off now than we were in the 1970s?

rpedela 11y ago
I dont know if we are or not, but that isnt the point. The point is that prior to the reforms, campaign finance was problematic. Since it is still a problem, I would say the reforms didnt fix the problem completely if at all. Therefore we need another, better reform rather than going backwards in my opinion.
- jessaustin 11y ago
  If you don't know why reform didn't fix the problem, and you propose even more reform, that is very much to the point. We're deep in the hole already, and you're ordering more shovels.
  - rpedela 11y ago
    Let us use a CS analogy. There is a critical bug A and solution B does not completely fix the problem. What do you do? 1. Throw your hands up and remove the imperfect solution. 2. Leave it alone because solution B partially fixes the problem. 3. Find solution C which completely solves the problem. I hope you would pick #3 like all great engineers would.
    - jessaustin 11y ago
      At the risk of engaging in activity that Neal Stephenson would consider "undignified", I'm going to criticize this analogy, and offer a different one. No government has ever had the command over its subjects that a programmer has over the components of a computer. Human societies are extremely nonlinear and resistant to arbitrary commands. Thus seemingly simple laws, like an alcohol prohibition, lead to wildly flawed results. Political advertising is even more closely coupled with other aspects of the system than is drinking alcohol. It's not a surprise that attempts to control political advertising of the naive, "we'll make a law against it" variety have failed to achieve their goals. They already tried using your analogy, and it didn't work. Instead, I'd suggest the process of A/B testing as a potentially insightful analogy. It's a bit of a dark art, but in general we can say that after injecting orange into the color scheme on the site, and finding that CTR drops 30% as a result, the next step is not to make the color scheme completely orange. Lessig needs to go back to the drawing board. He wants to fight corruption, and on that point I agree with him. He fixates on overturning Citizens United, which had precisely nothing to do with corruption, and on that point I think he suffers a failure of imagination.
      - rpedela 11y ago
        > At the risk of engaging in activity that Neal Stephenson would consider "undignified", I'm going to criticize this analogy, and offer a different one. I dont understand the reference. Can you elaborate?
        jessaustin 11y ago
        Long ago Neal Stephenson wrote a long rambling meditation on operating systems called In the Beginning Was the Command Line. At one point he compared Unix to the Hole Hawg by Milwaukee Tool, and found that other OSes were like Black & Decker toys in comparison. Nathan Myhrvold (later of Intellectual Ventures infamy, but then with M$) was moved to send him a different interpretation of the drill analogy. In the second edition of ItBWtCL (which edition it seems is not online in any form), Stephenson mentioned Myhrvold's disagreement, but declined to compare the analogies in any detailed way, considering such an exercise undignified.

nickff 11y ago

Do you believe that a small number of individuals providing most of the campaign funding is the problem, or do you believe that a concentrated donor base creates worse outcomes in government? Your citation describes the concentrated donor base, but does not make any attempt to demonstrate that it has negative consequences (in addition to being of disputed factual accuracy). If campaign spending was reduced, and this increased the effect of public opinion on the government, it is likely that government would be worse.[1] [1] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/The_Myth_of_the_Rational_Voter https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/The_Myth_of_the_Rational_Voter

rpedela 11y ago
It isnt really about the amount of campaign spending for me. I would be okay with 10x more spending. I personally dont like that the majority of contributions come from a relatively small number of people or organizations. I would like the rules changed so that they are more egalitarian. One possible solution is only individuals (no companies, PACs, organizations) can contribute up to $100 per candidate. And the money comes from federal taxes rather than people spending from their wallets directly. You could argue that whoever gets the most money in this system will also win the election because people are essentially voting with their wallets. And even poor people can participate which is the reason for the federal taxes. As far as governing, if something like that was the system then politicians would hopefully feel more free to do what they think is right rather than what they think will appease their donors. Even if that doesn't turn out to be true, I still think it is a good thing to make campaign finance more egalitarian because it eliminates one potential source of corruption.
- nickff 11y ago
  The first two of your paragraphs about your feelings are completely irrelevant to this policy discussion, though I understand they are of great importance to you. Your last point is interesting because you seem to prioritize elimination of donor influence. I on the other hand, am ambivalent when it comes to the prevalence of donor influence, and would only be inclined to minimize donor influence if it had a negative impact on governance. Caplan makes the point that political 'shirking', and non-voting both improve governmental results. Do you prioritize involvement of the citizenry in poltics over governmental outcomes (i.e. the good of the people)?