11 ms·

Bernie’s Army of Coders

96 points by betolink 11y ago

SilasX 11y ago
Interesting! This part got me thinking though: >And last summer a map compiling all the Sanders campaign happenings across the country, built by volunteer Rapi Castillo, a Philippine immigrant living in Queens who isn’t an American citizen and can’t vote this November, became the official “eventslink on Sanders’ website. So a foreigner is effectively giving an in-kind campaign contribution to a candidate? How come people (and the law) lash back at monetary contributions but not this kind?
- Zikes 11y ago
  If the data is openly available I'm not sure how anybody could stop a foreigner from building whatever they wanted on top of it. You could question the decision to link to it in an official manner, but by that point it just becomes a freedom of speech issue, doesn't it?
  - SilasX 11y ago
    Yeah, but then (per sibling subthread) we're right back to Citizen's United: "So I can spend all the time I want promoting a candidate, but if I use that time to generate money to pay others to promote the candidate, that's prohibited?" Prohibiting "contributions" to candidates, has to infringe on a kind of free speech.
    - Zikes 11y ago
      I disagree with the Citizen's United comparison, since donating time towards a campaign can't be pocketed the same way money is. You can't commoditize already-spent labor in that way. Regardless, I think the real solution would be campaign laws similar to the UK's. It's my understanding that each candidate is given the same hard cap on campaign spending, which encompasses everything from advertising to the cost of sleeping on a friend's couch while traveling. Every candidate's expenditures are diligently recorded and easily audited if necessary, and it creates a level playing field.
      - SilasX 11y ago
        >I disagree with the Citizen's United comparison, since donating time towards a campaign can't be pocketed the same way money is. You can't commoditize already-spent labor in that way. But if it displaces another expense, it causes them to pocket the monetary savings from that expense. >Every candidate's expenditures are diligently recorded and easily audited if necessary, and it creates a level playing field. Even the independent expenditures? Like, if someone goes around buying ads because they just like Candidate X so much, does that count against X's budget? Probably not, hence why that approach doesn't quite resolve the Citizen's United issues -- the problem was the advocacy of people unrelated to a campaign.
        Zikes 11y ago
        Since the labor is an independent expenditure built on public data and the only thing Sanders did was link to it, the expense displacement is effectively nil.
        SilasX 11y ago
        So then the UK system doesn't address this problem, because there is still potentially unlimited money from interested parties who can independently propagandize for a candidate or issue.
      - gozur88 11y ago
        >It's my understanding that each candidate is given the same hard cap on campaign spending, which encompasses everything from advertising to the cost of sleeping on a friend's couch while traveling. And how do you deal with third parties who advocate for issues? If Candidate A and Candidate B have a different position on something, it's pretty clear who you're helping if you blanket the airwaves supporting Candidate A's side of the issue even if you're not explicitly addressing either candidate. Does that come out of his budget? Do we restrict unaffiliated groups? Those sorts of restrictions have been tried in the US, and each time they get circumvented by (officially) unaffiliated groups.
        11y ago
- weatherlight 11y ago
  I'm not sure how you would enforce that, It boils down to free speech really.
  - bmelton 11y ago
    And this is why ultimately I agree with the decision in Citizens United. If my bill rate is $200 an hour, then it's possible to put a financial amount on any activity I do in support of a candidate. If they did that, then we would just get the usual brinksmanship (assuming a cap), and I might be "too wealthy" to contribute time to the candidate I support. Contrarily, if I'm just as passionate about a candidate, and have more money than programming skills, I'm happy to contribute that instead. It was a long road for me before I accepted the argument that money equals speech, but if actions are, then it isn't a big jump for me to suggest that the payment for my actions ought to be as well, and if I made a short film in support of a candidate, I can't see any way possible of doing that for free.
    - conical 11y ago
      Every citizen has one vote and 24 hours in a day to allocate to supporting a candidate (bounded by the obvious). Speech has much more in common with time than it does money.
    - weatherlight 11y ago
      Corporations shouldn't be people though. This is a dangerous precedent.
      - ageek123 11y ago
        Legal recognition of corporations as people long pre-dated Citizens United: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Corporate_personhood https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Corporate_personhood
      - bmelton 11y ago
        I disagree 1) that they are, and 2) that they oughtn't be allowed to be for what you're intending. On 1) They aren't persons, but do have a limited degree of personhood. Among other things, that personhood is what allows us to sue them and such. On 2) I don't have a problem with it. If companies have to abide the law, then I can't imagine how it would be that they shouldn't have input into its making. I agree that corporate influence is a real problem, but would personally suggest that limiting the scope of influence available to lawmakers is a better alternative to fixing the problem than limiting people (who form corporations) of their first amendment rights. That said, this debate is getting into the 'purely political' territory, and is probably not a great fit for an HN discussion.
- tn13 11y ago
  Very interesting point. The only reason I have not donated to volunteered for Rand Paul is because I was foreigner. Also, I think candidates must show responsibility and least make everyone sign that they are US nationals.
- deleted 11y ago
  [deleted]
- rapicastillo 11y ago
  Hi! I'm the immigrant in the story. For what it's worth I'm permanent resident, not allowed to vote. Furthermore, it's seen as an in-kind contribution, just like when you help building a stage for the campaign, only in online-terms. It's explained more in http://www.nytimes.com/2015/09/04/us/politics/bernie-sanders-presidential-campaign-tech-supporters.html?_r=0 http://www.nytimes.com/2015/09/04/us/politics/bernie-sanders...
  - rbanffy 11y ago
    I wonder if, as someone who sympathizes with the Sanders campaign, a foreign citizen who is not a US resident, could legally get involved in this. I would, most definitely, not want to create any legal problems to the campaign.
    - stephenboyd 11y ago
      I'm not anyone's attorney, but yes, you can legally volunteer. > The Commission has concluded herein that because uncompensated volunteer services are not considered to be a contribution under the Act, any individual, including a foreign national, may volunteer his or her uncompensated services to a candidate without making a contribution to that candidate. From the PDF linked from here: http://www.fec.gov/pages/brochures/foreign.shtml#Volunteer http://www.fec.gov/pages/brochures/foreign.shtml#Volunteer Whether the Sanders campaign actually wants foreign volunteers is a different issue.
      - rbanffy 11y ago
        \o/
      - cmdrfred 11y ago
        Could you not in theory start up a corporation as a foreigner and then spread your "free speech"¹ around all as you like? ¹https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Citizens_United_v._FEC https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Citizens_United_v._FEC
    - ild 11y ago
- fiatmoney 11y ago
  A lot of people actually do have a problem with non-citizens attempting to influence US elections.
ck2 11y ago
Before we start admiring things, let's see what happens on Super Tuesday (12 days away). Nothing of what Sanders is doing is going to survive past a left primary. Absolutely nothing he is promising can be done without Congress. ------------ reply to below since I can only answer two replies on HN anymore before being blocked: Wrong comparison. That's like wanting to be manager when you have only worked at a company for a couple years. Come on now. If Sanders ideas can work so well, why don't all these eager people first implement them at a local level where they have more immediate power? Nope, they want to go directly to the executive because it is a figurehead. Sanders comes from a 96% WHITE state - they are ridiculously homogeneous and are nothing like the rest of the United States. Only Maine is whiter. Why is his state like that in the 21st century? Why does everyone else feel unwelcome to live there? Sanders will never attract the 3-4% of undecided voters and we will end up with Trump picking the next few supreme court judges. Why are you okay with losing the presidency for the next eight years based on theoretical ideas that are not proven to work anywhere and won't get voted for by the masses?
- hanniabu 11y ago
  "I really want a raise at work, but that can't be done without my boss. So I'm just not even going to try" Sounds kind of ridiculous, right?
- weatherlight 11y ago
  Ideas are powerful. What Sanders' rise (and to some extent, Trump's) symbolize political system whose representatives that are woefully out of touch with its constituents. I think congress and the Senate is next, we are going to see a huge shake up in each party from the top down. Don't be surprised if we start seeing more Sanders-like-citizens running for Congress. We live in interesting times.
  - bhaumik 11y ago
    It's already happening. > https://newrepublic.com/article/129047/bernies-army-running-congress https://newrepublic.com/article/129047/bernies-army-running-... > https://www.reddit.com/r/grassrootsselect https://www.reddit.com/r/grassrootsselect
m0th87 11y ago
Their site, not linked off in the article: https://coders.forsanders.com/ https://coders.forsanders.com/
- bhaumik 11y ago
  And Slack group if you're interested in joining: https://cfs-slack.forsanders.com/ https://cfs-slack.forsanders.com/
r721 11y ago
This article reminded me of a feature about Obama campaign from 2012: http://www.theatlantic.com/technology/archive/2012/11/when-the-nerds-go-marching-in/265325/?single_page=true http://www.theatlantic.com/technology/archive/2012/11/when-t... HN discussion: https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=4794720 https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=4794720
anon987 11y ago
So far: 51 comments and so far zero comments about the technical aspects of this article - only political bickering. Yet another thinly veiled political story that somehow make it to the front page because it has the word "coders" in the title.
melted 11y ago
The exact same folks who Bernie is going to raise taxes for, mind you. He won't really be able to do anything against the 1% (since they own the Congress, and will continue to own it), but upper middle class represents an attractive target for a cash grab to pay for all those nice free rides he's promising to the poor.
- toomuchtodo 11y ago
  > but upper middle class represents an attractive target for a cash grab to pay for all those nice free rides he's promising to the poor. TIL first world social services are "nice free rides promised to the poor."
  - melted 11y ago
    Sorry to be the bearer of bad news, but first world social services (by which I suspect you mean universal healthcare) aren't going to happen either, Bernie or no Bernie. For that to happen one would have to dismantle the healthcare insurance industry (which Obama had to give hundreds of billions to, in order to pass ACA) and screw over the doctors who currently charge an arm and a leg because they can (ACA does little to nothing to control the costs, which is why they are still rising). That's a trillion dollar industry, the best you can hope for is very gradual evolution in the right direction. It's "hope, change" bullshit all over again, except Bernie is very likely to keel over in the next 9 years.
    - toomuchtodo 11y ago
      You're free to your opinion! Progress occurs one funeral at a time (the US is slowly turning progressive as the 65+ cohort ages). Maybe it takes a year. Maybe it takes ten. People like myself just continue pushing in the direction we'd like to go. Its unfortunate you're jaded into the idea that no change can occur.
      - melted 11y ago
        Cohorts beyond 35 or so (also known as people who might actually have something to lose) are more conservative and they have always been. So your hope that conservatives will die out is naive at best. People turn conservative real quick once they have a bit of money in their brokerage and/or savings account.

96 points by betolink 11y ago

Interesting! This part got me thinking though: >And last summer a map compiling all the Sanders campaign happenings across the country, built by volunteer Rapi Castillo, a Philippine immigrant living in Queens who isn’t an American citizen and can’t vote this November, became the official “eventslink on Sanders’ website. So a foreigner is effectively giving an in-kind campaign contribution to a candidate? How come people (and the law) lash back at monetary contributions but not this kind?

Zikes 11y ago
If the data is openly available I'm not sure how anybody could stop a foreigner from building whatever they wanted on top of it. You could question the decision to link to it in an official manner, but by that point it just becomes a freedom of speech issue, doesn't it?
- SilasX 11y ago
  Yeah, but then (per sibling subthread) we're right back to Citizen's United: "So I can spend all the time I want promoting a candidate, but if I use that time to generate money to pay others to promote the candidate, that's prohibited?" Prohibiting "contributions" to candidates, has to infringe on a kind of free speech.
  - Zikes 11y ago
    I disagree with the Citizen's United comparison, since donating time towards a campaign can't be pocketed the same way money is. You can't commoditize already-spent labor in that way. Regardless, I think the real solution would be campaign laws similar to the UK's. It's my understanding that each candidate is given the same hard cap on campaign spending, which encompasses everything from advertising to the cost of sleeping on a friend's couch while traveling. Every candidate's expenditures are diligently recorded and easily audited if necessary, and it creates a level playing field.
    - SilasX 11y ago
      >I disagree with the Citizen's United comparison, since donating time towards a campaign can't be pocketed the same way money is. You can't commoditize already-spent labor in that way. But if it displaces another expense, it causes them to pocket the monetary savings from that expense. >Every candidate's expenditures are diligently recorded and easily audited if necessary, and it creates a level playing field. Even the independent expenditures? Like, if someone goes around buying ads because they just like Candidate X so much, does that count against X's budget? Probably not, hence why that approach doesn't quite resolve the Citizen's United issues -- the problem was the advocacy of people unrelated to a campaign.
      - Zikes 11y ago
        Since the labor is an independent expenditure built on public data and the only thing Sanders did was link to it, the expense displacement is effectively nil.
        SilasX 11y ago
        So then the UK system doesn't address this problem, because there is still potentially unlimited money from interested parties who can independently propagandize for a candidate or issue.
    - gozur88 11y ago
      >It's my understanding that each candidate is given the same hard cap on campaign spending, which encompasses everything from advertising to the cost of sleeping on a friend's couch while traveling. And how do you deal with third parties who advocate for issues? If Candidate A and Candidate B have a different position on something, it's pretty clear who you're helping if you blanket the airwaves supporting Candidate A's side of the issue even if you're not explicitly addressing either candidate. Does that come out of his budget? Do we restrict unaffiliated groups? Those sorts of restrictions have been tried in the US, and each time they get circumvented by (officially) unaffiliated groups.
      - 11y ago
weatherlight 11y ago
I'm not sure how you would enforce that, It boils down to free speech really.
- bmelton 11y ago
  And this is why ultimately I agree with the decision in Citizens United. If my bill rate is $200 an hour, then it's possible to put a financial amount on any activity I do in support of a candidate. If they did that, then we would just get the usual brinksmanship (assuming a cap), and I might be "too wealthy" to contribute time to the candidate I support. Contrarily, if I'm just as passionate about a candidate, and have more money than programming skills, I'm happy to contribute that instead. It was a long road for me before I accepted the argument that money equals speech, but if actions are, then it isn't a big jump for me to suggest that the payment for my actions ought to be as well, and if I made a short film in support of a candidate, I can't see any way possible of doing that for free.
  - conical 11y ago
    Every citizen has one vote and 24 hours in a day to allocate to supporting a candidate (bounded by the obvious). Speech has much more in common with time than it does money.
  - weatherlight 11y ago
    Corporations shouldn't be people though. This is a dangerous precedent.
    - ageek123 11y ago
      Legal recognition of corporations as people long pre-dated Citizens United: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Corporate_personhood https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Corporate_personhood
    - bmelton 11y ago
      I disagree 1) that they are, and 2) that they oughtn't be allowed to be for what you're intending. On 1) They aren't persons, but do have a limited degree of personhood. Among other things, that personhood is what allows us to sue them and such. On 2) I don't have a problem with it. If companies have to abide the law, then I can't imagine how it would be that they shouldn't have input into its making. I agree that corporate influence is a real problem, but would personally suggest that limiting the scope of influence available to lawmakers is a better alternative to fixing the problem than limiting people (who form corporations) of their first amendment rights. That said, this debate is getting into the 'purely political' territory, and is probably not a great fit for an HN discussion.
tn13 11y ago
Very interesting point. The only reason I have not donated to volunteered for Rand Paul is because I was foreigner. Also, I think candidates must show responsibility and least make everyone sign that they are US nationals.
deleted 11y ago
[deleted]
rapicastillo 11y ago
Hi! I'm the immigrant in the story. For what it's worth I'm permanent resident, not allowed to vote. Furthermore, it's seen as an in-kind contribution, just like when you help building a stage for the campaign, only in online-terms. It's explained more in http://www.nytimes.com/2015/09/04/us/politics/bernie-sanders-presidential-campaign-tech-supporters.html?_r=0 http://www.nytimes.com/2015/09/04/us/politics/bernie-sanders...
- rbanffy 11y ago
  I wonder if, as someone who sympathizes with the Sanders campaign, a foreign citizen who is not a US resident, could legally get involved in this. I would, most definitely, not want to create any legal problems to the campaign.
  - stephenboyd 11y ago
    I'm not anyone's attorney, but yes, you can legally volunteer. > The Commission has concluded herein that because uncompensated volunteer services are not considered to be a contribution under the Act, any individual, including a foreign national, may volunteer his or her uncompensated services to a candidate without making a contribution to that candidate. From the PDF linked from here: http://www.fec.gov/pages/brochures/foreign.shtml#Volunteer http://www.fec.gov/pages/brochures/foreign.shtml#Volunteer Whether the Sanders campaign actually wants foreign volunteers is a different issue.
    - rbanffy 11y ago
      \o/
    - cmdrfred 11y ago
      Could you not in theory start up a corporation as a foreigner and then spread your "free speech"¹ around all as you like? ¹https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Citizens_United_v._FEC https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Citizens_United_v._FEC
  - ild 11y ago
fiatmoney 11y ago
A lot of people actually do have a problem with non-citizens attempting to influence US elections.

ck2 11y ago

Before we start admiring things, let's see what happens on Super Tuesday (12 days away). Nothing of what Sanders is doing is going to survive past a left primary. Absolutely nothing he is promising can be done without Congress. ------------ reply to below since I can only answer two replies on HN anymore before being blocked: Wrong comparison. That's like wanting to be manager when you have only worked at a company for a couple years. Come on now. If Sanders ideas can work so well, why don't all these eager people first implement them at a local level where they have more immediate power? Nope, they want to go directly to the executive because it is a figurehead. Sanders comes from a 96% WHITE state - they are ridiculously homogeneous and are nothing like the rest of the United States. Only Maine is whiter. Why is his state like that in the 21st century? Why does everyone else feel unwelcome to live there? Sanders will never attract the 3-4% of undecided voters and we will end up with Trump picking the next few supreme court judges. Why are you okay with losing the presidency for the next eight years based on theoretical ideas that are not proven to work anywhere and won't get voted for by the masses?

hanniabu 11y ago
"I really want a raise at work, but that can't be done without my boss. So I'm just not even going to try" Sounds kind of ridiculous, right?
weatherlight 11y ago
Ideas are powerful. What Sanders' rise (and to some extent, Trump's) symbolize political system whose representatives that are woefully out of touch with its constituents. I think congress and the Senate is next, we are going to see a huge shake up in each party from the top down. Don't be surprised if we start seeing more Sanders-like-citizens running for Congress. We live in interesting times.
- bhaumik 11y ago
  It's already happening. > https://newrepublic.com/article/129047/bernies-army-running-congress https://newrepublic.com/article/129047/bernies-army-running-... > https://www.reddit.com/r/grassrootsselect https://www.reddit.com/r/grassrootsselect

m0th87 11y ago

Their site, not linked off in the article: https://coders.forsanders.com/ https://coders.forsanders.com/

bhaumik 11y ago
And Slack group if you're interested in joining: https://cfs-slack.forsanders.com/ https://cfs-slack.forsanders.com/

r721 11y ago

This article reminded me of a feature about Obama campaign from 2012: http://www.theatlantic.com/technology/archive/2012/11/when-the-nerds-go-marching-in/265325/?single_page=true http://www.theatlantic.com/technology/archive/2012/11/when-t... HN discussion: https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=4794720 https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=4794720

anon987 11y ago

So far: 51 comments and so far zero comments about the technical aspects of this article - only political bickering. Yet another thinly veiled political story that somehow make it to the front page because it has the word "coders" in the title.

melted 11y ago

The exact same folks who Bernie is going to raise taxes for, mind you. He won't really be able to do anything against the 1% (since they own the Congress, and will continue to own it), but upper middle class represents an attractive target for a cash grab to pay for all those nice free rides he's promising to the poor.

toomuchtodo 11y ago
> but upper middle class represents an attractive target for a cash grab to pay for all those nice free rides he's promising to the poor. TIL first world social services are "nice free rides promised to the poor."
- melted 11y ago
  Sorry to be the bearer of bad news, but first world social services (by which I suspect you mean universal healthcare) aren't going to happen either, Bernie or no Bernie. For that to happen one would have to dismantle the healthcare insurance industry (which Obama had to give hundreds of billions to, in order to pass ACA) and screw over the doctors who currently charge an arm and a leg because they can (ACA does little to nothing to control the costs, which is why they are still rising). That's a trillion dollar industry, the best you can hope for is very gradual evolution in the right direction. It's "hope, change" bullshit all over again, except Bernie is very likely to keel over in the next 9 years.
  - toomuchtodo 11y ago
    You're free to your opinion! Progress occurs one funeral at a time (the US is slowly turning progressive as the 65+ cohort ages). Maybe it takes a year. Maybe it takes ten. People like myself just continue pushing in the direction we'd like to go. Its unfortunate you're jaded into the idea that no change can occur.
    - melted 11y ago
      Cohorts beyond 35 or so (also known as people who might actually have something to lose) are more conservative and they have always been. So your hope that conservatives will die out is naive at best. People turn conservative real quick once they have a bit of money in their brokerage and/or savings account.