6 ms·

Kongregate founder tackles 'dark money' in political campaigns

63 points by jim-greer 12y ago

fragsworth 12y ago
This doesn't surprise me. I've met Jim Greer a few times, having done Clicker Heroes and Cloudstone with Kongregate. He's one of the very few tech leaders who is clearly an honest, genuine, down-to-earth good guy. He obviously wants to do good for the world with this company, and I'm glad for it.
- kovacs 12y ago
  +1 I never worked with Jim but almost did and networked a number of times. Your description matches my read exactly.
k2xl 12y ago
I think it is very interesting the kind of crew that he assembled around him to solve this problem - game developers, spam bot algorithm designers.. It is definitely a team with a skillset "outside" of the establishment. I met Jim Greer about 7-8 years ago when Kongregate was first starting up. He definitely understands marketing and media - so I have no doubt his line of thinking will be well suited into solving this issue. I'm sure they will "iterate" their message multiple times as they grow and see what works. As much as I dislike Grover Norquist, one can't deny that he proved the power of "pledges." Dark money is just one of many problems in Washington, so I'm glad these guys are taking it on.
smsm42 12y ago
Anonymous speech means the speakers compete on message. Banning anonymous speech means if you lose on message, and you have power, you can attack your opponent on other aspects - threaten their livelihood by attacking their employer, harass their relatives, alienate their friends and peers, in short - make their life a living hell without even bothering to actually address their message. This is especially an option when an independent citizen tries to take on a corrupt and well-entrenched opponent, possessing the use of a vast governmental machine. Of course, you can not run in elections anonymously - but you can support a courageous individual who does, without fear of retaliation for the entrenched power, if your privacy is respected. If it is not, it is very easy to cut down an upstart candidate by an entrenched incumbent by just attacking their supporters and intimidating them before the challenger even becomes a threat. Now, tell me please, how that would be a good thing? US has a long standing tradition of anonymous political speech, starting with the Federalist Papers. The consequences of getting rid of this tradition may be much worse than the rosy picture the proponents paint.
- pessimizer 12y ago
  Anonymous funding isn't the same as anonymous speech (although SCOTUS disagrees with me.) Everyone has the same number of voices, but a vastly different number of dollars. If one party spends $100M on their message, and the other just says it loudly at city council meetings, to his/her friends, passes out $100 worth of fliers, writes letters to the editors of every major newspaper, and puts up a webpage they designed themselves - there's no competition on message here. It's a slaughter on resources. >Banning anonymous speech means if you lose on message, and you have power, you can attack your opponent on other aspects Money is far more akin to power than speech. Money is generally a proxy for power.
  - smsm42 12y ago
    It is essentially the same. Money is needed to effect the speech, especially in the era of professional marketing and electronic media. Of course, you can just stand on top of a soapbox and shout, but how effective would that be? To deliver your speech to the masses, you need money and usually a professional help. I bet the guy jumping from the plane and filming it wasn't working for free in that ad, right? And the plane didn't fly without fuel and pilot, which needed to be paid for, too? This is all necessary components of effective political speech, and by restricting it, you are restricting speech and reducing it to a whisper to be heard only by ones in your immediate vicinity. >>> If one party spends $100M on their message, and the other just says it loudly at city council meetings In fact, nothing like this happens. Usually, for any idea worth talking about, there is a lot of money on both sides, because a lot of people in the US have money and would gladly spend it to support the cause they consider right. Much less would be willing to do so if they would face harassment, retaliation and possibly ruin of their life's work for it. I do not think this should be a consequence of you supporting your favorite cause. Do you? If your worst and most corrupt opponents would control the state enforcement machine, would you prefer to be able to work anonymously to dislodge them or not be able to do this without risking your whole life be ruined immediately? >>> Money is generally a proxy for power. This is true. But you can not (usually) exercise the power directly against the message - the First Amendment guards against that quite successfully. With privacy destroyed, you can, however, successfully use the power against the messenger or people that allow them to deliver this message - thus effectively killing the message without running afoul of the letter of the First Amendment, but entirely destroying its purpose.

63 points by jim-greer 12y ago

This doesn't surprise me. I've met Jim Greer a few times, having done Clicker Heroes and Cloudstone with Kongregate. He's one of the very few tech leaders who is clearly an honest, genuine, down-to-earth good guy. He obviously wants to do good for the world with this company, and I'm glad for it.

kovacs 12y ago
+1 I never worked with Jim but almost did and networked a number of times. Your description matches my read exactly.

k2xl 12y ago

I think it is very interesting the kind of crew that he assembled around him to solve this problem - game developers, spam bot algorithm designers.. It is definitely a team with a skillset "outside" of the establishment. I met Jim Greer about 7-8 years ago when Kongregate was first starting up. He definitely understands marketing and media - so I have no doubt his line of thinking will be well suited into solving this issue. I'm sure they will "iterate" their message multiple times as they grow and see what works. As much as I dislike Grover Norquist, one can't deny that he proved the power of "pledges." Dark money is just one of many problems in Washington, so I'm glad these guys are taking it on.

smsm42 12y ago

Anonymous speech means the speakers compete on message. Banning anonymous speech means if you lose on message, and you have power, you can attack your opponent on other aspects - threaten their livelihood by attacking their employer, harass their relatives, alienate their friends and peers, in short - make their life a living hell without even bothering to actually address their message. This is especially an option when an independent citizen tries to take on a corrupt and well-entrenched opponent, possessing the use of a vast governmental machine. Of course, you can not run in elections anonymously - but you can support a courageous individual who does, without fear of retaliation for the entrenched power, if your privacy is respected. If it is not, it is very easy to cut down an upstart candidate by an entrenched incumbent by just attacking their supporters and intimidating them before the challenger even becomes a threat. Now, tell me please, how that would be a good thing? US has a long standing tradition of anonymous political speech, starting with the Federalist Papers. The consequences of getting rid of this tradition may be much worse than the rosy picture the proponents paint.

pessimizer 12y ago
Anonymous funding isn't the same as anonymous speech (although SCOTUS disagrees with me.) Everyone has the same number of voices, but a vastly different number of dollars. If one party spends $100M on their message, and the other just says it loudly at city council meetings, to his/her friends, passes out $100 worth of fliers, writes letters to the editors of every major newspaper, and puts up a webpage they designed themselves - there's no competition on message here. It's a slaughter on resources. >Banning anonymous speech means if you lose on message, and you have power, you can attack your opponent on other aspects Money is far more akin to power than speech. Money is generally a proxy for power.
- smsm42 12y ago
  It is essentially the same. Money is needed to effect the speech, especially in the era of professional marketing and electronic media. Of course, you can just stand on top of a soapbox and shout, but how effective would that be? To deliver your speech to the masses, you need money and usually a professional help. I bet the guy jumping from the plane and filming it wasn't working for free in that ad, right? And the plane didn't fly without fuel and pilot, which needed to be paid for, too? This is all necessary components of effective political speech, and by restricting it, you are restricting speech and reducing it to a whisper to be heard only by ones in your immediate vicinity. >>> If one party spends $100M on their message, and the other just says it loudly at city council meetings In fact, nothing like this happens. Usually, for any idea worth talking about, there is a lot of money on both sides, because a lot of people in the US have money and would gladly spend it to support the cause they consider right. Much less would be willing to do so if they would face harassment, retaliation and possibly ruin of their life's work for it. I do not think this should be a consequence of you supporting your favorite cause. Do you? If your worst and most corrupt opponents would control the state enforcement machine, would you prefer to be able to work anonymously to dislodge them or not be able to do this without risking your whole life be ruined immediately? >>> Money is generally a proxy for power. This is true. But you can not (usually) exercise the power directly against the message - the First Amendment guards against that quite successfully. With privacy destroyed, you can, however, successfully use the power against the messenger or people that allow them to deliver this message - thus effectively killing the message without running afoul of the letter of the First Amendment, but entirely destroying its purpose.