5 ms·

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 ineffic

by 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
How are you going to find 100M people who agree on what is in the public interest?
- riggins 14y ago
  How are you going to find 100M people who agree on what is in the public interest? well how about phone unlocking? I struggle to see the case for having locked phones. My first cut would be an appeal like 'the phone companies are trying to steal money out of your pocket. It's un-American. You should be free to do what you want with you phone.'
  - TylerE 14y ago
    Ok, the case for locked phones is that you can get a $600 phone for $200. If you want to truly OWN your device, you can pay fair market value for it, and get service from whoever you want.
    - deleted 14y ago
      [deleted]
    - gknoy 14y ago
      > the case for locked phones is that you can get a $600 phone for $200. Paying $200 instead of $600 is covered by the two year contract you sign with a carrier to get a subsidized phone, during which you pay them back the cost of that subsidization. If you leave early, an early-termination fee ensures that the subsidization is paid for. At the end of your two year contract, you've paid back the full cost of the phone, and you should be able to treat it as Yours in every sense of the word -- even if that means unlocking it and taking it to another service provider.
      - grkvlt 14y ago
        Yes, and that is _NOT_ illegal. You're quite free to unlock your phone after the contract runs out, or if you pay your carrier the fees to unlock it, in the case above that would probably be the $400 dollar difference between your price and the unlocked price. I'm not sure I see the issue here - if you want the unlocked phone, then buy it and pay for a SIM only type contract, or do such things not exist in the US?

by riggins 14y ago

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

How are you going to find 100M people who agree on what is in the public interest?

riggins 14y ago
How are you going to find 100M people who agree on what is in the public interest? well how about phone unlocking? I struggle to see the case for having locked phones. My first cut would be an appeal like 'the phone companies are trying to steal money out of your pocket. It's un-American. You should be free to do what you want with you phone.'
- TylerE 14y ago
  Ok, the case for locked phones is that you can get a $600 phone for $200. If you want to truly OWN your device, you can pay fair market value for it, and get service from whoever you want.
  - deleted 14y ago
    [deleted]
  - gknoy 14y ago
    > the case for locked phones is that you can get a $600 phone for $200. Paying $200 instead of $600 is covered by the two year contract you sign with a carrier to get a subsidized phone, during which you pay them back the cost of that subsidization. If you leave early, an early-termination fee ensures that the subsidization is paid for. At the end of your two year contract, you've paid back the full cost of the phone, and you should be able to treat it as Yours in every sense of the word -- even if that means unlocking it and taking it to another service provider.
    - grkvlt 14y ago
      Yes, and that is _NOT_ illegal. You're quite free to unlock your phone after the contract runs out, or if you pay your carrier the fees to unlock it, in the case above that would probably be the $400 dollar difference between your price and the unlocked price. I'm not sure I see the issue here - if you want the unlocked phone, then buy it and pay for a SIM only type contract, or do such things not exist in the US?