10 ms·

MayDay PAC

• purephase 12y ago
  I'm frankly surprised that there is any sort of funding shortfall for this idea. For US-based profitable start-ups or established companies, this is absolutely in your best interests. Two issues alone, Net Neutrality and the NSA overreach directly impact your ability to operate or expand globally and should be of major concern to smaller US-based technology companies. It's not like Lessig is some nobody. If anyone has the ability to truly pull this off, and make change, I'd put my money on him.
  • memonkey 12y ago
    Lessig is probably the only honest reason I'm donating. I've been following his career for quite some time and a lot of the things he's written are persuasive and coherent and insightful. There are similar SuperPACs (WolfPAC) but, again, I wouldn't have been super aware of them if it weren't for Lessig and some of my own research.
    • bloodmoney 12y ago
      I've donated $100 three different times. I just got to the point where I have to do something and this seems like a good start.
  • deleted 12y ago
    [deleted]
• nathan_f77 12y ago
  I really wish I could donate, but I'm not a permanent resident. This is an amazing initiative.
  • deleted 12y ago
    [deleted]
    • skybrian 12y ago
      What happens if they reach their goal, but after giving the money back they're under it again?
      • deleted 12y ago
        [deleted]
  • deleted 12y ago
    [deleted]
• deleted 12y ago
  [deleted]
• nardi 12y ago
  If you want less corruption and cronyism in Congress, and you want your voice heard again in D.C., I honestly think the best thing you can do is give Lawrence Lessig your money, before the day is over.
• snide 12y ago
  Can someone more knowledgable give some specific details about their plan? I've read what I could on their website, but I can't really get a hold of what the specific platform is, if any parties are involed...etc. For example, they want to win 5 races. Who would these candidates be? Is pure election reform their only task? It's very easy for me to understand the anger. But my pessimism makes me skeptical of yet another political group asking for money to change politics. I was very disappointed that their website homepage really didn't list any of the details or the specifics, it just detailed the anger. It also had the usual array of celebrity endorsements around that anger. I dunno, at its face this looks very similar to the splinter group party stuff on both sides. Again. I'm just not someone super versed on this stuff and am looking for info. What makes this different and why will this work?
  • linksbro 12y ago
    Here is "the plan" from their website. https://mayday.us/the-plan/ https://mayday.us/the-plan/ If you are interested, Republic Lost by Lessig is a great read on the reality of campaign finance.
    • mdaniel 12y ago
      And if you don't feel like shelling out the money, Lessig has posted a PDF of the book online (presumably under a Creative Commons license, but I didn't check into it that far as I already own the book) http://lesterland.lessig.org/pdf/republic-lost.pdf http://lesterland.lessig.org/pdf/republic-lost.pdf
  • diztrakted 12y ago
    I'm with you on this. They don't have a specific plan and I am well on the side of pessimism so far. Especially because they make no attempt at transparancy on the site. If they really wanted me to feel their sincerity, they'd have a section of the site introducing the people (other than Lessig) behind this PAC. As is, I donated anyway, because I believe in Lessig's commitment, but I want to see some specifics soon. I know that part of why they can't name specific races they're entering for example is because they don't know how specific midterm races are shaping up. They also need to be very careful at this stage to avoid alienating donors from either party by outright stating they're targeting an incumbent from their party (or worse, district). I just want them to start doing their research on these imminent races and start releasing this info to the public. Otherwise they will be forgetting that the only thing the growing populist sentiment in America hates more than moneyed interests, it's secrecy. I wish them the best. And as is, they're likely to get it: they raised over a million dollars in the past four hours.
• deleted 12y ago
  [deleted]
• ehc 12y ago
  The key thing that I don't think enough people understand is that this campaign finance reform that Lessig is working on is an issue for anyone who has ANY cause. Whether your cause is is climate change, net neutrality, or anything else, meaningful change with that issue is largely blocked by THIS issue (money in politics). Lessig's personal path of giving up his work copyright reform as his "issue" to focus on corruption is exactly this understanding - that this needs to be treated as the core problem before any progress can be made with net neutrality, immigration or other issues. For this reason I'm very surprised that the tech community, who is so loud about net neutrality, isn't speaking up more about this corruption. Sure, there are different approaches to fighting against it, but I think Lessig's experiment is a great one and definitely worth our money.
  • deleted 12y ago
    [deleted]
  • dantheman 12y ago
    This issue is about limiting the ability to speak. Anyone that is against Super PACs and "getting money out of politics" is arguing that speech needs to be reduced. It's treating the symptom, not the cause. The reason so much money is being spent, is that the amount of money the government controls and the amount of regulations it creates the potential for groups to get significant advantages. The correct solution is to decentralize power; it easier to win one election instead of 50. And to reduce the amount of activity the government does, less pork spending and less market distortions.
    • osdiab 12y ago
      His platform is not that speech needs to be reduced. It's that as many parties as possible need to be able to have a voice, and because certain entities can spend dramatically more money than the rest of society, they can drown out the voices of others. Lessig gives specific examples of possible policies to illustrate that it's actually an increase in speech rather than a decrease in it, here: https://mayday.us/the-plan/#fundamental-reform-in-the-way-elections-are-funded https://mayday.us/the-plan/#fundamental-reform-in-the-way-el...
• rdl 12y ago
  I'll probably donate to this in a few hours, but to understand it more fully, what is the argument against getting PACs/money out of politics? (Clearly there's a simple argument against MayDay PAC itself, that it might be unsuccessful in its mission, but that's a much weaker argument.) As far as I understand it, there are four main arguments for money in politics: 1) Money is speech; protecting free speech is important, and protecting political speech (and thus financial donations to campaigns) is probably the most important form of protected speech. 2) The utilitarian argument: if money is taken out of politics, groups with less economic power but greater organization and numbers will become dominant. (I'm not sold on pure democracy either). Control of "large audiences" without control of money to reach the public might become important; I'd rather live in a world where I can donate hundreds or thousands to EFF to influence policy vs. a world where Pat Robertson or Oprah are the only people who can influence voters. 3) The implementation argument: if this eliminates a fairly accessible form of financing (the PAC), those who control smaller but more enduring forms of money for political contribution will rise in power. IMO, those people tend to be much more objectionable than people who contribute to PACs. Or, if companies are kept out of politics, but unions are allowed to continue donating, etc. 4) Priorities: this might NOT be the most important issue right now. Maybe immigration is. Maybe not going to war in Iran is. etc. I don't know how valid these arguments are.
  • inglesp 12y ago
    Maybe it's because I'm not American, but I've got no idea what "money is speech" means. It sounds almost Orwellian from this side of the pond.
    • rdl 12y ago
      http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Buckley_v._Valeo http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Buckley_v._Valeo
    • nickff 12y ago
      Money is not equivalent to speech, but money is necessary to enable speech. Similarly, none of the following are speech, yet all are essential to it: telephones, computers, servers, printers, megaphones, and pens. If the government bans spending by certain groups, it is preventing them from acquiring the means to advocate for their ideas, which is the essential (and primary) purpose of political speech. The "money is speech" phrase is a straw-man put forward by opponents of the expansion of 1st Amendment rights to non-media organizations. If you want an example of how this might affect groups you support, consider that many courts have ruled blogs to be non-media activities, thus they could be banned from engaging in any politically related speech by the Federal Electoral Commission, if you accept Solicitor General Verrilli's arguments. The government could also ban groups and individuals from sending letters to newspaper editors by preventing the purchase of stamps to send the offending messages, or it could simply declare that uncompensated services (such as letter-writing, or petitioning) by groups like unions or other advocacy groups should be evaluated as a contribution, and limited or banned.
• deleted 12y ago
  [deleted]
• jasonhn9999 12y ago
  I heard that if the July 4th deadline is met, the money will be matched. Does anyone know who is providing the matching funds?
  • frewsxcv 12y ago
    At least for this second round of five million, I don't think they've announced at this point
• wilg 12y ago
  I just found out about this and immediately donated. Maybe that's stupid, but I really think this is the fundamental issue facing America today. If there's even the smallest chance something like this could be effective I want in.
• deleted 12y ago
  [deleted]
• edavis 12y ago
  Save your money, people. I'm sorry, but this just seems like another in the long line of Lessig projects with laudable goals but will ultimately amount to very little. Remember Rootstrikers? From MayDay.us: > The funders of campaigns are holding our democracy hostage. We want to pay the ransom and get it back. This analogy only works if the campaign funders also see themselves as holding democracy hostage. But guess what? They don't see themselves that way. The moneyed elites see themselves as exercising their right to free speech on the issues important to them. And they have the Supreme Court and the House of Representatives in agreement with them on this issue. And this is where Lessig errs. As his diagnosis for what ails our democracy is wrong, his treatment cannot be successful. ---- Lessig sees our political system as a small cabal of wealthy black hats thwarting the will of the people while he fights on the side of the white hats trying to revive small-d democracy in America. But how do the "black hats" in this scenario see it? They'll see it as this other moneyed interest group trying to stifle their First Amendment right to free speech. And they'll fight like hell to prevent Lessig's group from being successful. They're not going to just "accept the ransom" and slink back to their mansions. And because of the terrain Lessig has chosen to fight this on ("Fight money in politics with more money in politics! Embrace the irony!") we're back to square one: One group of moneyed interests fighting another group of moneyed interests. Exciting, right? Only now, the "white hats" face a distinct disadvantage. The "black hats" can raise $5 for every $1 raised by the "white hats." Sheldon Adelson can drop tens of millions like that. How do you like them odds? ---- What's my suggested fix? Well, to quote The Wire: "The game is rigged, but you cannot lose if you do not play." Stop trying to beat the wealthy at their own game. Change the game entirely. Look around, people. The whole system is beyond repair and has been for years. We're way past the point where a SuperPAC will fix a goddamn thing. Nothing short of wholesale, violent revolution and a complete re-structuring of our society and economy will suffice. We have to utterly smash the bastions of privilege and power if we want any hope of a fair and democratic society in our lifetime. Happy Fourth :)
  • pyre 12y ago
    > We have to utterly smash the bastions of privilege and power if we want any hope of a fair and democratic society in our lifetime. ... then we end up with violent revolutionaries in control. What could possibly go wrong?
• programminggeek 12y ago
  Ron Paul Revolution. I'm not sure if anyone remembers it, but they were great at raising money online. They had a lot of good ideas and frankly they were right on a lot of issues that helped win Obama the election when the rest of the Republican party was still gunning for more war in the Middle East the public no longer supported. Oh, and the economy. Here's what happened... Even with millions raised, the Republican nomination went to John McCain who brought us Sarah Palin. Months after a sound defeat, Fox News and Glen Beck co-opted the Ron Paul/Tea Party movement, which they previously spent 2 years making fun of, into the corporate political machine that it is now. The Tea Party of current times has little in common with the Tea Party that tried to get Ron Paul the nomination, twice. This is a very long winded way of saying I've seen political movements pop up online before and they tend to fizzle and die, or have the energy co-opted into something that is not the same thing at all. I fully expect if this becomes a big enough deal for some Democrats and Republicans to once again crow about campaign finance reform (because it sounds good, just ask John McCain), that it will get co-opted by big money into somehow reinforcing the current system or otherwise giving big moneu politics further advantages. I'm not sure that any of us fully grasp how much money truly controls the political process at every level. There is so much money it's basically impossible to expunge it no matter how hard you try. It's nice to see the excitement around this, even if I don't think it will pan out.
  • programminggeek 12y ago
    Also, campaign finance reform seems to e in vogue every couple decades or so. It's like the argument of mainframe vs. client server or monolithic codebases vs. modular codebases. It feels like we are doomed to repeat ourselves.
  • robalfonso 12y ago
    I think the issue with this PAC (and others with similar slate of goals) is the naiveté that if we are able to reform election policy and cutoff unlimited funding from lobbyists and other 3rd parties that the interests behind that money just disappear. These groups still have money and still have an agenda, and they will work to the very limit of the law (and possibly more) to exercise that agenda. I can see this pac achieving their goals only to find out the top spenders dramatically increase their employee bonuses with a wink and a nod as to how it should be spent. I'm sure they can be more creative than that. I wish that this reform would work but it won't. I'd rather go after term limits or combine the two. Its much harder to influence a politician who won't be around next term.