5 ms·

What would it take for the people to buy back Congress?

12 points by espeed 17y ago

jpwagner 17y ago
A noble cause, but the implementation may need more thought. Outspending the lobbyists is not a sustainable solution. What would prevent lobbyists from spending more? (requiring an increased "tax", etc...) How would this "tax" eventually be weaned off?
- espeed 17y ago
  If you get enough people involved, you'll have a force that not only has the money but the power to vote politicians out of office. Then you can work to persuade politicians to enact laws that will make it harder for corporate lobbyists to influence legislation.
- espeed 17y ago
  "A noble cause, but the implementation may need more thought." Please help make the implementation better -- share your thoughts. This is a work in progress, and we appreciate input from smart and talented people.
jerf 17y ago
Three problems leap immediately to mind: Do you really want to play One Dollar, One Vote? Can we say "boil the ocean"? Finally, the other big problem with these approaches is that people tend to think in the back of their head that deep down, everybody agrees with them, and the reason the government doesn't reflect their exact desires is that special interests and other things are getting in the way of how everybody feels. That's wrong. People genuinely want different things. How are you going to prevent this from becoming a more expensive clone of what we've already got? It's all very easy to imagine this great getting together of people that will all pull together, but it's the same people that are in the old system. You're really better off just getting corruption out of the system. Yes, it's harder than anything else, and may very well prove impossible, but if it is, nothing else is going to work anyhow.
- espeed 17y ago
  Putting more money into the system seems like a perverse idea, but in Washington money buys access and influence. Corporate lobbyists will continue to do so regardless so we must counter that in some way. Politicians need resources to get elected and remain in office so they are naturally attracted to whomever can meet those needs. It's Maslow's hierarchy of needs -- you need enough resources to feel safe in your position before you can function effectively. Right now corporate lobbyists are providing those resources to politicians, and if politicians don't play ball, the lobbyists will take the resources away and give them to the politician's challengers. Politicians can rationalize it away with expressions like "you can't govern if you're not in office." This is a bad position to be in for the American people. It's hard for us to win in a game like this unless politicians have a better option for raising money to get elected. However, if the people are able to overpower corporate lobbyists, then maybe we can persuade politicians to enact laws that reduce corporate lobbyists' ability to influence Congress. Also, the ability for the community and system to debunk propaganda is key because you're absolutely right, it could amplify corporate positions if people keep buying into it. Propaganda works in part because we're so busy that we don't have time to verify all the claims. With the help of the community, the system would make it easy for people to get true information on the issues they care about. Most propaganda I've seen can be easily debunked with hard evidence (links to the actual bills, etc) -- you just have to take the time to look into it. When you reveal the secret to a magician's trick, it loses its effect, and that's why putting lobbyist's methods front and center could go a long way to reducing the effects.
- alnayyir 17y ago
  >Can we say "boil the ocean"? Careful, I hear tell that the ZFS people are working on that very idea.
dangoldin 17y ago
Although a nice idea, it suffers from the fact that it would be very difficult to get that many people on the same page. Smaller groups are able to come to decisions much more quickly and will be able to move faster. The lobbiest advantage is that they can afford to raise money quickly and be able to focus it on specific issues. Although every citizen can together raise a ton of money, once that money is raised it will be very difficult allocating it. Imagine if people had to come together in order to raise money for museums rather than relying on large individual contributions. It's likely that many fewer museums would exist. For a deeper look at this I recommend reading the book by Mancur Olson - The Rise and Decline of Nations: Economic Growth, Stagflation, and Social Rigidities. It takes a look at special interest groups and their effects on economic growth. http://www.amazon.com/Rise-Decline-Nations-Stagflation-Rigidities/dp/0300030797/ref=sr_1_1?ie=UTF8&s=books&qid=1254613920&sr=8-1 http://www.amazon.com/Rise-Decline-Nations-Stagflation-Rigid...
- espeed 17y ago
  The people don't have to be on the same page for every issue -- some will have opposing views -- but even with opposing views, at least it's the voice of the electorate and not corporations. Contributions are made on a per-issue basis so they are self allocating.
  - deleted 17y ago
    [deleted]
jws 17y ago
Remember that there are good lobbyists too. I know an industry that was nearly accidentally legislated out of business. They spent most of 6 figures on a lobbyist to find the right people, and give them the right sentence to be added to the bill. Industry saved. If you want to stop the "bad" lobbyists, you need to develop a more accurate description for what it is you are fighting.
- espeed 17y ago
  Lobbyists advocating corporate interests that run contrary to the common good.
  - jpwagner 17y ago
    who gets to define "common good"? (and who can lobby that committee?)
    - espeed 17y ago
      The American people. The people submit issues that are important to them and others vote up and allocate micropayments to issues they support. The amount of support behind each issue would indicate the level of common good. Then politicians have the option of supporting those issues or not.
      - Perceval 17y ago
        Why should micropayments enter into it at all? Sending letters to Congresspeople should be enough to indicate the amount of support. Consider the stamp purchase my micropayment.
        espeed 17y ago
        See my comment here: http://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=859479 http://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=859479
      - JimmyL 17y ago
toadstone 17y ago
if the population knew which congressperson deserves their $3, they would know which congressperson deserves their vote
- espeed 17y ago
  The $3 could be divided among all congresspersons whom vote in favor of their issues, and it could be pre-allocated for potential supporters so politicians know how much money is available if they support it.
  - toadstone 17y ago
    The people do not currently vote in their own interest. Having them give $3/mo as well as their vote will not solve this. This project assumes that people are well informed enough to know whom to support. They are not, and that is why a campaign well funded by special interest is more effective at getting someone elected than giving the people what they need.
    - espeed 17y ago
      Campaigns are about issues and appealing to people's interest. The people's interest are a politician's primary concern during election years, but the problem is that after the election lobbyists go to work and the politician's primary concern becomes the lobbyists' interests because they are the loudest voice and can make or break a politician in the next election. I agree that people do not currently always vote in their own interest, and one of the reasons for this is that lobbyists are able to convince people that they don't want something they should. That's the power of propaganda. Lobbyists don't just lobby politicians -- they lobby the people too. One of the systems primary services will be to debunk lobbyist propaganda. Also, $3 per month isn't a hard number -- $3 just shows how little money it would take to change the game -- compare that to how much extra we are paying in taxes to pay for unnecessary expenditures.
espeed 17y ago
FYI: We're looking for developers to help build this. As Paul Graham says, "Be good" (http://omnisio.com/startupschool08/paul-graham-at-startup-school-08 http://omnisio.com/startupschool08/paul-graham-at-startup-sc...) -- here's your chance to change the world for the better. This is a benevolent project for the common good. Contact us -- we'd love to chat.
- Perceval 17y ago
  How 'common' is the common good you're thinking about here? If this lobby group becomes dominated by Republican issues and concerns, will you still consider it a "benevolent project for the common good?"
  - espeed 17y ago
    That could happen. As it stands right now, we're losing the battle to corporate lobbyists, and we don't have many tools in place to do anything about it. This is about creating a tool to deal with the situation. It gives people the opportunity to take action -- but you can't force them to act.
stcredzero 17y ago
Mobilizing the population (and their donations) through the internet is a big part of how Barack Obama got elected. (And yes, the rest was behind the scenes wheeling and dealing in oak-paneled back-rooms.) We know this can work. As always, "Who watches the Watchmen?" What ensures these other lobbyists don't become part of the corruption problem?
- Perceval 17y ago
  >What ensures these other lobbyists don't become part of the corruption problem? This project is not a solution to the problem of money in politics. It's a "if you can't lick 'em, join 'em" project.
  - espeed 17y ago
    Yes, fight fire with fire :)
- espeed 17y ago
  The system will have checks and balances built in that are transparent to users. The organization would not lobby for any position directly. Instead, lobbying firms that specialize in the given policy areas would lobby on behalf of the users that support those policies, and the users could have a say in which lobbying firms are used for particular issues.
- espeed 17y ago
  Yes, Obama raised most of his money online, and his average donation was $86 (http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/27262116/ http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/27262116/).
JimmyL 17y ago
As I read it, your goal is to get more Americans to join your project than currently use Facebook, and have them all do $3/month in targeted political donations. Didn't that get tried by MoveOn?
- espeed 17y ago
  This is a non-partisan effort, and people can submit whatever issues they want addressed -- then the community votes on them. It is not driven by a political agenda other than to combat corporate lobbyists. We are leveraging previous social waves to enable people to take action, to do something about the problems, rather than being relegated to spectators in the political game. And they can do it from the comfort of their homes as they watch the issues debated on the news.
  - JimmyL 17y ago
    That's how MoveOn works - it lets its community members vote on issues that it will prioritize in its campaigns and lobbying.
    - espeed 17y ago
      Move on is partisan (progressive) organization, and they accept donations in a traditional way (https://pol.moveon.org/donate/donate.html https://pol.moveon.org/donate/donate.html). They have an "Action Forum," which is a discussion forum where people can post ideas, but I don't believe you can contribute micropayments toward specific issues.
mbrubeck 17y ago
"there were 146 million registered voters in the US.... for $3 a month we could outspend special interests and campaign contributors combined." Isn't this just like the "if only 1%..." fallacy, except it's "if only 100%..."?
- espeed 17y ago
  $3 per month just shows how little money it would take to change the game -- compare that to how much extra we are paying in taxes to pay for unnecessary expenditures. It's $36 per year -- people could donate more -- you can donate up to $2,000 per candidate per election. And $3 per month is to outspend all contributions and all lobbying expenditures combined -- you could spend much less to be an influential player.
  - JimmyL 17y ago
    I don't think anyone's doubting the $3/month figure - most people could spare that. It's the "getting 100% of registered voters to participate" part that has many people thinking you're overreaching slightly. For the most part, the people that currently donate to political organizations will keep donating to those same organizations - they're happy with them, they voluntarily chose to donate to them, and they will need a lot of convincing to move their donor-dollars. So you're going to need to get people who don't currently donate money for political purposes to join your effort, and have their money used to pay for corporate lobbyists. How?
    - espeed 17y ago
      You don't have to get 100% of registered voters to participate. For one thing, if someone gives more than $3 then that means you need less people to contribute. But more importantly, the top corporate donor is AT&T (http://www.opensecrets.org/orgs/index.php http://www.opensecrets.org/orgs/index.php) -- if you click on AT&T's name, you will see that AT&T contributed $4.5 million total in 2008. At $3 per month, that's only 125,366 users. The $3 per month per registered voter is to outspend all contributors and all lobby expenditures combined -- including what individuals gave. You don't need to raise that much to be an influential player.
cousin_it 17y ago
So, congresspeople stop worrying about voters once they get elected. The obvious solution is holding elections after congresspeople vote on issues, to determine whose votes will count and who gets thrown out. Too bad it won't be implemented because it's "too big a change".
- espeed 17y ago
  And most people don't track how their representatives vote on each issue, especially on issues that don't get much press coverage so it's easy to pacify corporate lobbyists in this type of legislation. You are right, changing the system from within probably won't happen so you need an external solution. That is what this proposal is -- an external solution that can be implemented regardless of what Congress does.
Foreclosure 17y ago
Very good Post and i love to share to all of my friends.. Thanks http://www.gethomesolutions.com http://www.gethomesolutions.com

12 points by espeed 17y ago

A noble cause, but the implementation may need more thought. Outspending the lobbyists is not a sustainable solution. What would prevent lobbyists from spending more? (requiring an increased "tax", etc...) How would this "tax" eventually be weaned off?

espeed 17y ago
If you get enough people involved, you'll have a force that not only has the money but the power to vote politicians out of office. Then you can work to persuade politicians to enact laws that will make it harder for corporate lobbyists to influence legislation.
espeed 17y ago
"A noble cause, but the implementation may need more thought." Please help make the implementation better -- share your thoughts. This is a work in progress, and we appreciate input from smart and talented people.

jerf 17y ago

Three problems leap immediately to mind: Do you really want to play One Dollar, One Vote? Can we say "boil the ocean"? Finally, the other big problem with these approaches is that people tend to think in the back of their head that deep down, everybody agrees with them, and the reason the government doesn't reflect their exact desires is that special interests and other things are getting in the way of how everybody feels. That's wrong. People genuinely want different things. How are you going to prevent this from becoming a more expensive clone of what we've already got? It's all very easy to imagine this great getting together of people that will all pull together, but it's the same people that are in the old system. You're really better off just getting corruption out of the system. Yes, it's harder than anything else, and may very well prove impossible, but if it is, nothing else is going to work anyhow.

espeed 17y ago
Putting more money into the system seems like a perverse idea, but in Washington money buys access and influence. Corporate lobbyists will continue to do so regardless so we must counter that in some way. Politicians need resources to get elected and remain in office so they are naturally attracted to whomever can meet those needs. It's Maslow's hierarchy of needs -- you need enough resources to feel safe in your position before you can function effectively. Right now corporate lobbyists are providing those resources to politicians, and if politicians don't play ball, the lobbyists will take the resources away and give them to the politician's challengers. Politicians can rationalize it away with expressions like "you can't govern if you're not in office." This is a bad position to be in for the American people. It's hard for us to win in a game like this unless politicians have a better option for raising money to get elected. However, if the people are able to overpower corporate lobbyists, then maybe we can persuade politicians to enact laws that reduce corporate lobbyists' ability to influence Congress. Also, the ability for the community and system to debunk propaganda is key because you're absolutely right, it could amplify corporate positions if people keep buying into it. Propaganda works in part because we're so busy that we don't have time to verify all the claims. With the help of the community, the system would make it easy for people to get true information on the issues they care about. Most propaganda I've seen can be easily debunked with hard evidence (links to the actual bills, etc) -- you just have to take the time to look into it. When you reveal the secret to a magician's trick, it loses its effect, and that's why putting lobbyist's methods front and center could go a long way to reducing the effects.
alnayyir 17y ago
>Can we say "boil the ocean"? Careful, I hear tell that the ZFS people are working on that very idea.

dangoldin 17y ago

Although a nice idea, it suffers from the fact that it would be very difficult to get that many people on the same page. Smaller groups are able to come to decisions much more quickly and will be able to move faster. The lobbiest advantage is that they can afford to raise money quickly and be able to focus it on specific issues. Although every citizen can together raise a ton of money, once that money is raised it will be very difficult allocating it. Imagine if people had to come together in order to raise money for museums rather than relying on large individual contributions. It's likely that many fewer museums would exist. For a deeper look at this I recommend reading the book by Mancur Olson - The Rise and Decline of Nations: Economic Growth, Stagflation, and Social Rigidities. It takes a look at special interest groups and their effects on economic growth. http://www.amazon.com/Rise-Decline-Nations-Stagflation-Rigidities/dp/0300030797/ref=sr_1_1?ie=UTF8&s=books&qid=1254613920&sr=8-1 http://www.amazon.com/Rise-Decline-Nations-Stagflation-Rigid...

espeed 17y ago
The people don't have to be on the same page for every issue -- some will have opposing views -- but even with opposing views, at least it's the voice of the electorate and not corporations. Contributions are made on a per-issue basis so they are self allocating.
- deleted 17y ago
  [deleted]

jws 17y ago

Remember that there are good lobbyists too. I know an industry that was nearly accidentally legislated out of business. They spent most of 6 figures on a lobbyist to find the right people, and give them the right sentence to be added to the bill. Industry saved. If you want to stop the "bad" lobbyists, you need to develop a more accurate description for what it is you are fighting.

espeed 17y ago
Lobbyists advocating corporate interests that run contrary to the common good.
- jpwagner 17y ago
  who gets to define "common good"? (and who can lobby that committee?)
  - espeed 17y ago
    The American people. The people submit issues that are important to them and others vote up and allocate micropayments to issues they support. The amount of support behind each issue would indicate the level of common good. Then politicians have the option of supporting those issues or not.
    - Perceval 17y ago
      Why should micropayments enter into it at all? Sending letters to Congresspeople should be enough to indicate the amount of support. Consider the stamp purchase my micropayment.
      - espeed 17y ago
        See my comment here: http://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=859479 http://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=859479
    - JimmyL 17y ago

toadstone 17y ago

if the population knew which congressperson deserves their $3, they would know which congressperson deserves their vote

espeed 17y ago
The $3 could be divided among all congresspersons whom vote in favor of their issues, and it could be pre-allocated for potential supporters so politicians know how much money is available if they support it.
- toadstone 17y ago
  The people do not currently vote in their own interest. Having them give $3/mo as well as their vote will not solve this. This project assumes that people are well informed enough to know whom to support. They are not, and that is why a campaign well funded by special interest is more effective at getting someone elected than giving the people what they need.
  - espeed 17y ago
    Campaigns are about issues and appealing to people's interest. The people's interest are a politician's primary concern during election years, but the problem is that after the election lobbyists go to work and the politician's primary concern becomes the lobbyists' interests because they are the loudest voice and can make or break a politician in the next election. I agree that people do not currently always vote in their own interest, and one of the reasons for this is that lobbyists are able to convince people that they don't want something they should. That's the power of propaganda. Lobbyists don't just lobby politicians -- they lobby the people too. One of the systems primary services will be to debunk lobbyist propaganda. Also, $3 per month isn't a hard number -- $3 just shows how little money it would take to change the game -- compare that to how much extra we are paying in taxes to pay for unnecessary expenditures.

espeed 17y ago

FYI: We're looking for developers to help build this. As Paul Graham says, "Be good" (http://omnisio.com/startupschool08/paul-graham-at-startup-school-08 http://omnisio.com/startupschool08/paul-graham-at-startup-sc...) -- here's your chance to change the world for the better. This is a benevolent project for the common good. Contact us -- we'd love to chat.

Perceval 17y ago
How 'common' is the common good you're thinking about here? If this lobby group becomes dominated by Republican issues and concerns, will you still consider it a "benevolent project for the common good?"
- espeed 17y ago
  That could happen. As it stands right now, we're losing the battle to corporate lobbyists, and we don't have many tools in place to do anything about it. This is about creating a tool to deal with the situation. It gives people the opportunity to take action -- but you can't force them to act.

stcredzero 17y ago

Mobilizing the population (and their donations) through the internet is a big part of how Barack Obama got elected. (And yes, the rest was behind the scenes wheeling and dealing in oak-paneled back-rooms.) We know this can work. As always, "Who watches the Watchmen?" What ensures these other lobbyists don't become part of the corruption problem?

Perceval 17y ago
>What ensures these other lobbyists don't become part of the corruption problem? This project is not a solution to the problem of money in politics. It's a "if you can't lick 'em, join 'em" project.
- espeed 17y ago
  Yes, fight fire with fire :)
espeed 17y ago
The system will have checks and balances built in that are transparent to users. The organization would not lobby for any position directly. Instead, lobbying firms that specialize in the given policy areas would lobby on behalf of the users that support those policies, and the users could have a say in which lobbying firms are used for particular issues.
espeed 17y ago
Yes, Obama raised most of his money online, and his average donation was $86 (http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/27262116/ http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/27262116/).

JimmyL 17y ago

As I read it, your goal is to get more Americans to join your project than currently use Facebook, and have them all do $3/month in targeted political donations. Didn't that get tried by MoveOn?

espeed 17y ago
This is a non-partisan effort, and people can submit whatever issues they want addressed -- then the community votes on them. It is not driven by a political agenda other than to combat corporate lobbyists. We are leveraging previous social waves to enable people to take action, to do something about the problems, rather than being relegated to spectators in the political game. And they can do it from the comfort of their homes as they watch the issues debated on the news.
- JimmyL 17y ago
  That's how MoveOn works - it lets its community members vote on issues that it will prioritize in its campaigns and lobbying.
  - espeed 17y ago
    Move on is partisan (progressive) organization, and they accept donations in a traditional way (https://pol.moveon.org/donate/donate.html https://pol.moveon.org/donate/donate.html). They have an "Action Forum," which is a discussion forum where people can post ideas, but I don't believe you can contribute micropayments toward specific issues.

mbrubeck 17y ago

"there were 146 million registered voters in the US.... for $3 a month we could outspend special interests and campaign contributors combined." Isn't this just like the "if only 1%..." fallacy, except it's "if only 100%..."?

espeed 17y ago
$3 per month just shows how little money it would take to change the game -- compare that to how much extra we are paying in taxes to pay for unnecessary expenditures. It's $36 per year -- people could donate more -- you can donate up to $2,000 per candidate per election. And $3 per month is to outspend all contributions and all lobbying expenditures combined -- you could spend much less to be an influential player.
- JimmyL 17y ago
  I don't think anyone's doubting the $3/month figure - most people could spare that. It's the "getting 100% of registered voters to participate" part that has many people thinking you're overreaching slightly. For the most part, the people that currently donate to political organizations will keep donating to those same organizations - they're happy with them, they voluntarily chose to donate to them, and they will need a lot of convincing to move their donor-dollars. So you're going to need to get people who don't currently donate money for political purposes to join your effort, and have their money used to pay for corporate lobbyists. How?
  - espeed 17y ago
    You don't have to get 100% of registered voters to participate. For one thing, if someone gives more than $3 then that means you need less people to contribute. But more importantly, the top corporate donor is AT&T (http://www.opensecrets.org/orgs/index.php http://www.opensecrets.org/orgs/index.php) -- if you click on AT&T's name, you will see that AT&T contributed $4.5 million total in 2008. At $3 per month, that's only 125,366 users. The $3 per month per registered voter is to outspend all contributors and all lobby expenditures combined -- including what individuals gave. You don't need to raise that much to be an influential player.

cousin_it 17y ago

So, congresspeople stop worrying about voters once they get elected. The obvious solution is holding elections after congresspeople vote on issues, to determine whose votes will count and who gets thrown out. Too bad it won't be implemented because it's "too big a change".

espeed 17y ago
And most people don't track how their representatives vote on each issue, especially on issues that don't get much press coverage so it's easy to pacify corporate lobbyists in this type of legislation. You are right, changing the system from within probably won't happen so you need an external solution. That is what this proposal is -- an external solution that can be implemented regardless of what Congress does.

Foreclosure 17y ago

Very good Post and i love to share to all of my friends.. Thanks http://www.gethomesolutions.com http://www.gethomesolutions.com