8 ms·

It's funny how you have to petition to have lawmakers pay attention to an issue, when by definition, those people are there to represent the interest of the maj

It's funny how you have to petition to have lawmakers pay attention to an issue, when by definition, those people are there to represent the interest of the majority in the first place.

adrr 14y ago
If all 100k people chipped in a $100, it would have more effect than this petition. We live in a time where it takes money to get elected.
- mtgx 14y ago
  That's why I think financing campaigns should only be done by individuals and with a cap of $100 each to "equalize" the money vote, just like you equalize the regular vote, by giving a person the same vote everyone gets. But the way the system works now, the "money vote" seems to be much more powerful than the real vote, and because certain individuals or corporations can put as much money as they want on that vote, that ends up skewing the election and the way the politician will fight for certain bills, greatly. So put a cap on how much you can donate, and ban corporations from donating. Only individuals should be able to donate. I don't care that they think they need $100 million to get elected, and with this they'd only get $10 million. The point is their competitors will only get by with that much, too, but in a much fairer system, where the voices of many more people have to be listened to, instead of just the voices of a few.
  - eshvk 14y ago
    I think the logic behind corporate financing/lobbying is that if you allow individuals to contribute money separately, there is no reason why organized groups should not band together, analyze the election, choose a candidate and pay $100 for every one of their members to that candidate's campaign. This organized machine is going to always trump a bunch of individuals haphazardly contributing money.
    - warfangle 14y ago
      Organizations should not be able to donate to campaigns or political action committees. Unions, superpacs, all of it. If an organization wants to petition its members to donate to a campaign or political action committee, go for it. But it cannot coerce, it cannot apply punitive measures to members that do not donate, and it cannot be a religious institution that receives tax-exempt status.
      - yakiv 14y ago
        Why does it matter here if the tax-exempt organization is religious or not? Pretty much every tax-exempt organization is going to have an agenda---if it didn't, it probably wouldn't exist. Why are religion-based agendas less tolerable here?
        warfangle 14y ago
        Religious organizations have the bonus of being able to coerce not only through threat of firing and social ostracization, but also through the threat of eternal damnation. Tax-exempt religious organizations such as churches can (but often don't) have their tax-exempt status revoked for urging their congregation to vote for specific political candidates already.
    - darkarmani 14y ago
      How is that any different than those employees donating the money directly to the campaign and then working on the campaign?
    - roc 14y ago
      You have two situations when it comes to organizations: The first, is typically called 'bundling'. An organization, say PETA, organizes a donation drive and encourages its members to make their personal contributions to campaigns PETA has researched and through such bundling the donations have a clear statement of why they were made and what policies are important to those donors. The second, is an organization donating its money politically, effectively increasing the net donation impact of its members. (as they can donate to the organization and still donate individually) The argument against the second situation still allows for the first. But conflating the first and second is begging the primary question of whether organizations themselves, in their limited-rights-having-but-clear-non-person status, ought to have their own right to political speech. Because we can deny organizations the right to contribute directly without denying them the right to bundle. And such a situation would actually massively multiply the power of organization itself: as engaging an increasing number of voters becomes more important than being able to convince a small number of wealthy backers to contribute increasing sums of money.
  - nateabele 14y ago
    This is not realistic now, nor will it likely ever be. By hook or by crook, money will always find its way into politics, so long as there's a high ROI (and oh boy is it high). The only real hedge against this is a return to a constitutional government that doesn't have the power to grant special favors. That opportunity has long since passed.
  - Alex3917 14y ago
    The real problem is there aren't enough congress people. If we multiplied the number of house and senate seats by 10, in order to bring the ratio of citizens to representatives back to the original levels, then it would solve 95% of the problems even without comprehensive finance reform.
    - jdechko 14y ago
      The real problem is that there are too many congress people. We have 535 congress members trying to come to an agreement on important things like actually developing a working budget. Can you imagine over 5,000 people voicing opinions on what a budget ought to look like?
      - jlgreco 14y ago
        Then maybe we should consider the possibility that it doesn't make any sense to have a country this large. Why should people living in Florida have any say whatsoever into the affairs of people living five thousand miles away in Alaska? Why vice-versa? How does that make any more sense than people in London having a say in the lives of people three thousand miles away in Boston?
        superkarn 14y ago
        Isn't that why we have states?
        jlgreco 14y ago
        Yes. Nevertheless, people in Florida are able to exert control over people in Alaska, and vice versa. That seems incredibly absurd to me, what do they share beyond a common language and currency? Even the distance between Portugal and Finland is only half of that, and the EU is rather different than the US Federal Government. If we all needed to band together to increase our military might in order to keep razing hoards of Canadians at bay, then I may see the need for it, and clearly the importance of common travel and trade agreements cannot be overstated, but right now our system enables politicians elected in flyover country to tell people living in Portland what they may or may not do in the privacy of their own home. The opposite is equally unfair. Where is the value in that? These are different communities, different regions, different societies being forced to play politics with each other. If we need to start sacrificing the quality of the democracy (reducing representation per individual) in order to keep a system so absurd running smoothly, then it should be downsized. Chop it all in half, or more, until the size of it resembles a more reasonably sized country. Two to four federal governments instead of one would make more sense. Representation per individual could increase back to previous levels without resulting in deadlock. Lest I come off the wrong way, my problem is not that the Federal government is strong, but rather that the Federal government covers a regions and people too diverse. I'm not a "state's rights" nut, just a Cascadia nut.
- riggins 14y ago
  If all 100k people chipped in a $100 I've actually thought for some time this is an area the tech community could make a positive impact addressing the inefficiency of a small focused interest prevailing against a much larger, but unfocused public interest. Thinking more like if 100M people contributed $1 to fund politicians that protect the public interest.
  - mmanfrin 14y ago
    I've been tossing around an idea of setting up a small PAC dedicated to tech issues. It would rate legislators on their stances on issues like net neutrality, patent reform, etc. Additionally, it would have a campaign fund, and each election cycle it would target the most egregiously bad legislators with that campaign fund. I've written some of the code -- but since that time I've learned a lot more so I will probably scrap what I have to rebuild.
    - chimeracoder 14y ago
      That sounds interesting - let me know if you're interested in getting that started again; I'd be up for working on it.
    - declan 14y ago
      I wrote a column for CNET 11 years ago titled: "Is it time for a GeekPAC?" Some of the ideas may still be useful: http://news.cnet.com/2010-1023-971115.html http://news.cnet.com/2010-1023-971115.html Nowadays you don't want a PAC. You'd probably want to set up multiple organizations including perhaps a 501(c)(4) and definitely a Super PAC expenditure-only committee, which is far more useful than a traditional PAC because it can conduct unlimited independent spending in favor of your preferred candidate (or against your non-preferred candidate). Traditional PACs, by contrast, can only give $5,000 to a candidate -- they're more useful if you're a company trying to lobby a congresscritter. Their scheduler is going to check to make sure you've given before deciding whether to set up the meeting with the boss, etc. Not as useful if you're an advocacy group trying to influence elections.
  - jfb 14y ago
- tocomment 14y ago
  Is there something like a kickstarter but for political issues? That would be perfect.
  - mtgx 14y ago
    I'm surprised that hasn't showed up a yet - a platform for politicians to ask for donations for their campaigns.
  - manaskarekar 14y ago
    Yes, it's called the government and you've backed it by paying taxes. In an ideal world, you would be able to choose what your taxes were used for. While filing taxes, you could select: NASA: 10% GREEN ENERGY RESEARCH: 10% <CITY> ROAD MAINTENANCE: 10% and so on.. Just a fantasy. Please don't bash me for imagining having taxes at all 'in an ideal world.'
- diminoten 14y ago
  Imagine a government-run website where you could pledge money to running candidates, up to a cap of $100 bucks. Or better yet, the government supplies the $100 per citizen, and the citizen decides which campaign it goes towards. No other fundraising is allowed by candidates, and the only way to get onto the ballot is through signatures (also doable from the government-run website, each citizen is granted the ability to endorse n candidates).
pyre 14y ago
Since when is the President a 'lawmaker?' If you want to get law-makers (i.e. legislators) to take notice just write your representative a letter.
- visualcsharp 14y ago
  I logged in to post that very message. Why are we petitioning the executive branch to "make it legal?" Last time I checked, the Constitutional authority to write laws is vested in the Congress. Be careful how much you clamor for Obama to make all your wishes come true, folks. You might just get more than you bargained for.
- AnthonyMouse 14y ago
  >Since when is the President a 'lawmaker?' Probably since overriding a veto is a lot harder than getting one more Senator to vote for the bill, which means the President has more say in what makes it into law than any individual legislator.
  - DigitalJack 14y ago
    Don't forget signing statements and executive orders.
    - fnordfnordfnord 14y ago
      And political appointees.
- pessimizer 14y ago
  As the guy who signs bills into law, and as the head of his party (meaning that he dictates how they are going to be whipped) he is lawmaker number 1.
  - btilly 14y ago
    The President is not the head of the party (Debbie Wasserman Schultz is to the extent that the position exists), nor is he in charge of whipping people (for the Democrats that's Steny Hoyer right now). He admittedly does have a huge bully pulpit. A defined legislative role. And he does personally lean on representatives. But the US has absolutely nothing equivalent to the organization and party discipline that countries. And "President" is an individually elected position by the country, and has no particular relation to his party other than "(very prominent) member".
mtrimpe 14y ago
I can't wait for the first petition to get over 160 million votes though ....
dbecker 14y ago
It's a way of expressing to lawmakers that people care about an issue.
nicksergeant 14y ago
Lawmakers represent corporations in The United States.
abraxasz 14y ago
No, I think it actually makes sense. How are lawmakers supposed to know every single one of their voter's issues? Plus this particular issue (unlocking phones) might be a particularly important one for you, but secondary for a vast majority of people (myself NOT included). So I find the system of petitions sensible in that respect.
anigbrowl 14y ago
Why do you assume you're in the majority? I heartily support the freedom to unlock one's own phone and so forth, but I'd bet $5 that the majority of people haven't thought about it that much and think carrier lockin is an acceptable price to pay for 'cheap' phones. Just because everyone you know agrees with you doesn't mean you form a majority; it just means you're part of a clique.

It's funny how you have to petition to have lawmakers pay attention to an issue, when by definition, those people are there to represent the interest of the majority in the first place.

adrr 14y ago

If all 100k people chipped in a $100, it would have more effect than this petition. We live in a time where it takes money to get elected.

mtgx 14y ago
That's why I think financing campaigns should only be done by individuals and with a cap of $100 each to "equalize" the money vote, just like you equalize the regular vote, by giving a person the same vote everyone gets. But the way the system works now, the "money vote" seems to be much more powerful than the real vote, and because certain individuals or corporations can put as much money as they want on that vote, that ends up skewing the election and the way the politician will fight for certain bills, greatly. So put a cap on how much you can donate, and ban corporations from donating. Only individuals should be able to donate. I don't care that they think they need $100 million to get elected, and with this they'd only get $10 million. The point is their competitors will only get by with that much, too, but in a much fairer system, where the voices of many more people have to be listened to, instead of just the voices of a few.
- eshvk 14y ago
  I think the logic behind corporate financing/lobbying is that if you allow individuals to contribute money separately, there is no reason why organized groups should not band together, analyze the election, choose a candidate and pay $100 for every one of their members to that candidate's campaign. This organized machine is going to always trump a bunch of individuals haphazardly contributing money.
  - warfangle 14y ago
    Organizations should not be able to donate to campaigns or political action committees. Unions, superpacs, all of it. If an organization wants to petition its members to donate to a campaign or political action committee, go for it. But it cannot coerce, it cannot apply punitive measures to members that do not donate, and it cannot be a religious institution that receives tax-exempt status.
    - yakiv 14y ago
      Why does it matter here if the tax-exempt organization is religious or not? Pretty much every tax-exempt organization is going to have an agenda---if it didn't, it probably wouldn't exist. Why are religion-based agendas less tolerable here?
      - warfangle 14y ago
        Religious organizations have the bonus of being able to coerce not only through threat of firing and social ostracization, but also through the threat of eternal damnation. Tax-exempt religious organizations such as churches can (but often don't) have their tax-exempt status revoked for urging their congregation to vote for specific political candidates already.
  - darkarmani 14y ago
    How is that any different than those employees donating the money directly to the campaign and then working on the campaign?
  - roc 14y ago
    You have two situations when it comes to organizations: The first, is typically called 'bundling'. An organization, say PETA, organizes a donation drive and encourages its members to make their personal contributions to campaigns PETA has researched and through such bundling the donations have a clear statement of why they were made and what policies are important to those donors. The second, is an organization donating its money politically, effectively increasing the net donation impact of its members. (as they can donate to the organization and still donate individually) The argument against the second situation still allows for the first. But conflating the first and second is begging the primary question of whether organizations themselves, in their limited-rights-having-but-clear-non-person status, ought to have their own right to political speech. Because we can deny organizations the right to contribute directly without denying them the right to bundle. And such a situation would actually massively multiply the power of organization itself: as engaging an increasing number of voters becomes more important than being able to convince a small number of wealthy backers to contribute increasing sums of money.
- nateabele 14y ago
  This is not realistic now, nor will it likely ever be. By hook or by crook, money will always find its way into politics, so long as there's a high ROI (and oh boy is it high). The only real hedge against this is a return to a constitutional government that doesn't have the power to grant special favors. That opportunity has long since passed.
- Alex3917 14y ago
  The real problem is there aren't enough congress people. If we multiplied the number of house and senate seats by 10, in order to bring the ratio of citizens to representatives back to the original levels, then it would solve 95% of the problems even without comprehensive finance reform.
  - jdechko 14y ago
    The real problem is that there are too many congress people. We have 535 congress members trying to come to an agreement on important things like actually developing a working budget. Can you imagine over 5,000 people voicing opinions on what a budget ought to look like?
    - jlgreco 14y ago
      Then maybe we should consider the possibility that it doesn't make any sense to have a country this large. Why should people living in Florida have any say whatsoever into the affairs of people living five thousand miles away in Alaska? Why vice-versa? How does that make any more sense than people in London having a say in the lives of people three thousand miles away in Boston?
      - superkarn 14y ago
        Isn't that why we have states?
        jlgreco 14y ago
        Yes. Nevertheless, people in Florida are able to exert control over people in Alaska, and vice versa. That seems incredibly absurd to me, what do they share beyond a common language and currency? Even the distance between Portugal and Finland is only half of that, and the EU is rather different than the US Federal Government. If we all needed to band together to increase our military might in order to keep razing hoards of Canadians at bay, then I may see the need for it, and clearly the importance of common travel and trade agreements cannot be overstated, but right now our system enables politicians elected in flyover country to tell people living in Portland what they may or may not do in the privacy of their own home. The opposite is equally unfair. Where is the value in that? These are different communities, different regions, different societies being forced to play politics with each other. If we need to start sacrificing the quality of the democracy (reducing representation per individual) in order to keep a system so absurd running smoothly, then it should be downsized. Chop it all in half, or more, until the size of it resembles a more reasonably sized country. Two to four federal governments instead of one would make more sense. Representation per individual could increase back to previous levels without resulting in deadlock. Lest I come off the wrong way, my problem is not that the Federal government is strong, but rather that the Federal government covers a regions and people too diverse. I'm not a "state's rights" nut, just a Cascadia nut.
riggins 14y ago
If all 100k people chipped in a $100 I've actually thought for some time this is an area the tech community could make a positive impact addressing the inefficiency of a small focused interest prevailing against a much larger, but unfocused public interest. Thinking more like if 100M people contributed $1 to fund politicians that protect the public interest.
- mmanfrin 14y ago
  I've been tossing around an idea of setting up a small PAC dedicated to tech issues. It would rate legislators on their stances on issues like net neutrality, patent reform, etc. Additionally, it would have a campaign fund, and each election cycle it would target the most egregiously bad legislators with that campaign fund. I've written some of the code -- but since that time I've learned a lot more so I will probably scrap what I have to rebuild.
  - chimeracoder 14y ago
    That sounds interesting - let me know if you're interested in getting that started again; I'd be up for working on it.
  - declan 14y ago
    I wrote a column for CNET 11 years ago titled: "Is it time for a GeekPAC?" Some of the ideas may still be useful: http://news.cnet.com/2010-1023-971115.html http://news.cnet.com/2010-1023-971115.html Nowadays you don't want a PAC. You'd probably want to set up multiple organizations including perhaps a 501(c)(4) and definitely a Super PAC expenditure-only committee, which is far more useful than a traditional PAC because it can conduct unlimited independent spending in favor of your preferred candidate (or against your non-preferred candidate). Traditional PACs, by contrast, can only give $5,000 to a candidate -- they're more useful if you're a company trying to lobby a congresscritter. Their scheduler is going to check to make sure you've given before deciding whether to set up the meeting with the boss, etc. Not as useful if you're an advocacy group trying to influence elections.
- jfb 14y ago
tocomment 14y ago
Is there something like a kickstarter but for political issues? That would be perfect.
- mtgx 14y ago
  I'm surprised that hasn't showed up a yet - a platform for politicians to ask for donations for their campaigns.
- manaskarekar 14y ago
  Yes, it's called the government and you've backed it by paying taxes. In an ideal world, you would be able to choose what your taxes were used for. While filing taxes, you could select: NASA: 10% GREEN ENERGY RESEARCH: 10% <CITY> ROAD MAINTENANCE: 10% and so on.. Just a fantasy. Please don't bash me for imagining having taxes at all 'in an ideal world.'
diminoten 14y ago
Imagine a government-run website where you could pledge money to running candidates, up to a cap of $100 bucks. Or better yet, the government supplies the $100 per citizen, and the citizen decides which campaign it goes towards. No other fundraising is allowed by candidates, and the only way to get onto the ballot is through signatures (also doable from the government-run website, each citizen is granted the ability to endorse n candidates).

pyre 14y ago

Since when is the President a 'lawmaker?' If you want to get law-makers (i.e. legislators) to take notice just write your representative a letter.

visualcsharp 14y ago
I logged in to post that very message. Why are we petitioning the executive branch to "make it legal?" Last time I checked, the Constitutional authority to write laws is vested in the Congress. Be careful how much you clamor for Obama to make all your wishes come true, folks. You might just get more than you bargained for.
AnthonyMouse 14y ago
>Since when is the President a 'lawmaker?' Probably since overriding a veto is a lot harder than getting one more Senator to vote for the bill, which means the President has more say in what makes it into law than any individual legislator.
- DigitalJack 14y ago
  Don't forget signing statements and executive orders.
  - fnordfnordfnord 14y ago
    And political appointees.
pessimizer 14y ago
As the guy who signs bills into law, and as the head of his party (meaning that he dictates how they are going to be whipped) he is lawmaker number 1.
- btilly 14y ago
  The President is not the head of the party (Debbie Wasserman Schultz is to the extent that the position exists), nor is he in charge of whipping people (for the Democrats that's Steny Hoyer right now). He admittedly does have a huge bully pulpit. A defined legislative role. And he does personally lean on representatives. But the US has absolutely nothing equivalent to the organization and party discipline that countries. And "President" is an individually elected position by the country, and has no particular relation to his party other than "(very prominent) member".

mtrimpe 14y ago

I can't wait for the first petition to get over 160 million votes though ....

dbecker 14y ago

It's a way of expressing to lawmakers that people care about an issue.

nicksergeant 14y ago

Lawmakers represent corporations in The United States.

abraxasz 14y ago

No, I think it actually makes sense. How are lawmakers supposed to know every single one of their voter's issues? Plus this particular issue (unlocking phones) might be a particularly important one for you, but secondary for a vast majority of people (myself NOT included). So I find the system of petitions sensible in that respect.

anigbrowl 14y ago

Why do you assume you're in the majority? I heartily support the freedom to unlock one's own phone and so forth, but I'd bet $5 that the majority of people haven't thought about it that much and think carrier lockin is an acceptable price to pay for 'cheap' phones. Just because everyone you know agrees with you doesn't mean you form a majority; it just means you're part of a clique.