Beta
×

Welcome to the Slashdot Beta site -- learn more here. Use the link in the footer or click here to return to the Classic version of Slashdot.

Thank you!

Before you choose to head back to the Classic look of the site, we'd appreciate it if you share your thoughts on the Beta; your feedback is what drives our ongoing development.

Beta is different and we value you taking the time to try it out. Please take a look at the changes we've made in Beta and  learn more about it. Thanks for reading, and for making the site better!

Lessig's Mayday PAC Scrambling To Cross Crowd Funding Finish Line

timothy posted about a month and a half ago | from the latest-midnight-they-could-find dept.

The Almighty Buck 117

First time accepted submitter SingleEntendre (1273012) writes "Time is running out for the Mayday PAC to reach its latest crowd funding goal of $5M. The total currently stands at $4.5M. Led by Harvard Law Professor Lawrence Lessig, the Mayday PAC seeks to reduce the influence of money in US politics by 2016, primarily by identifying and supporting congressional candidates who share this vision. If phase 2 is successful, with matching funds the total raised will be $12M. A self-imposed deadline arrives at of midnight tonight, July 4th, Hawaii-Aleutian Standard Time (HAST)." (And now the total's at $4,700,066.)

cancel ×

117 comments

Sorry! There are no comments related to the filter you selected.

Not a dime from me (-1, Troll)

Anonymous Coward | about a month and a half ago | (#47385843)

I just can't support someone whose idea of freedom is allegedly protecting the rights of one group by oppressing another group.

Re:Not a dime from me (4, Funny)

Anonymous Coward | about a month and a half ago | (#47385895)

Is the other group that they're oppressing money?

$5M goal reached ! (0)

Anonymous Coward | about a month and a half ago | (#47386759)

As I'm typing this, the Mayday PAC has successfully garnered $5,086,226 of donation

Congrats !

Re:Not a dime from me (2)

davester666 (731373) | about a month and a half ago | (#47387079)

Yes, we mustn't suppress Hitler. We have to somehow raise everybody else up.

Re:Not a dime from me (3, Insightful)

Em Adespoton (792954) | about a month and a half ago | (#47385947)

I just can't support someone whose idea of freedom is allegedly protecting the rights of one group by oppressing another group.

Are you a US citizen? If so, you're likely supporting the current government structure by paying taxes. Just saying.

If you can get similar momentum behind some solution that has a chance of making any difference, and doesn't oppress anyone, go for it.

Re: Not a dime from me (2)

Duwain Hans Powell (3732273) | about a month and a half ago | (#47386351)

Nirvana fallacy - Le mieux est l'ennemi du bien (The perfect is the enemy of the good) - Voltaire

Re:Not a dime from me (1)

guises (2423402) | about a month and a half ago | (#47386419)

"Allegedly" is right. The level of rhetoric here is nuts: Mayday's stated goal is to change the way that campaigns are funded such that each person (voter) can contribute equally to the campaigns of their choice. This is in opposition to the current method, where each person can contribute an amount limited only be their means, giving drastically more influence (or speech, as the supreme court sees it) to those of significant means.

There is no group being oppressed here, though I'm starting to think that these common sense campaigns could do better by taking some sort of crazy position like that. It's all that people hear nowadays.

Re:Not a dime from me (2)

Blakey Rat (99501) | about a month and a half ago | (#47387087)

"Allegedly" is right. The level of rhetoric here is nuts: Mayday's stated goal is to change the way that campaigns are funded such that each person (voter) can contribute equally to the campaigns of their choice.

That's the exact problem I have with it. It's an effective tax raise, and what happens to the money raised? It goes to support candidates I might vehemently disagree with. To buy them TV commercials. I find that pretty objectionable.

I have no issue with Lessig's end-goal here, I think it's noble and needed. But the way he's going about it is awful, and I won't be contributing money to it.

Re:Not a dime from me (0)

Anonymous Coward | about a month and a half ago | (#47387155)

> It goes to support candidates I might vehemently disagree with.

Only in the same way your tax dollars pays for lawyers to work as public defenders of heinous criminals.

In other words the fact that money goes to people you disagree with is part of the price of a fair system. You want a fair system? You have to pay for it one way or the other. You can't have your cake and eat it too.

Re:Not a dime from me (1)

guises (2423402) | about a month and a half ago | (#47387183)

Try looking at it this way: the 2012 election cost our economy just shy of $2 billion. If we do it through the voucher system, one of Mayday's proposed solutions, we can set that amount to whatever we like. Say $200 million, roughly the same as funded through FECA. That's a dramatic improvement in efficiency.

Now how you see that depends on your attitude towards money: the efficient method comes out of taxes (partially paid for by you), while the inefficient method is paid by third parties. In other words, the cost of the election in the inefficient case effects you indirectly rather than directly. As long as you are in any way connected to this economy though, you would feel it.

Re:Not a dime from me (1)

CrimsonAvenger (580665) | about a month and a half ago | (#47387459)

Does any mention of a candidate in the news come out of the hypothetical $200M?

If not, then the incumbent has an enormous advantage in that he/she can get into the news just by proposing a piece of legislation.

If so, then a news entity can burn through a disliked candidate's share of the $200M by doing a bunch of stories maligning the candidate, leaving no money for positive PR.

Or were you planning on suspending Freedom of the Press for campaigns?

Or did Lessig just forget that news people have political beliefs too, and are willing to act on them?

Re:Not a dime from me (1)

Anonymous Coward | about a month and a half ago | (#47387321)

I'd rather have $50 of my tax money go towards solving corruption and reducing the influence of special interests than whatever wasteful spending is going on now.

Re: Not a dime from me (0)

Anonymous Coward | about a month and a half ago | (#47386501)

Yup. Its good to allow Chinese gov to control our politician. I know that Coffman is on the take from Chinese business wholly owned by Chinese gov.

Re:Not a dime from me (1)

geezer nerd (1041858) | about a month and a half ago | (#47386541)

Where in this is someone oppressing anyone else? I don't see it.

Re: Not a dime from me (1)

bill_mcgonigle (4333) | about a month and a half ago | (#47386607)

yeah, Lessig always correctly identifies the corruption thst results ftom power being for sale, and then he proposes creating more power to solve it, 'cause, honest, it'll be different this time. He and his well-meaning friends will make sure of that.

Embrace the irony? (-1)

Anonymous Coward | about a month and a half ago | (#47385863)

"We need a team of legislators in Congress who will champion the public policies necessary to fix our broken government"

That is exactly what we have in the Libertarian party (and no, I don't mean the dope-smoking anarchist idiots, I mean the Tea Party), yet this asshat continuously cuts them down as if they're the end of the fucking world.

Re:Embrace the irony? (0, Redundant)

dosius (230542) | about a month and a half ago | (#47385877)

The Tea Party? You mean the religiots bent on turning our country into Saudi Arabia with crosses? No thank you.

Re: Embrace the irony? (0, Insightful)

Anonymous Coward | about a month and a half ago | (#47385949)

You have absolutely no idea what the Tea Party movement represents.

Re: Embrace the irony? (2, Interesting)

dosius (230542) | about a month and a half ago | (#47385985)

I know what they CLAIM to represent, and I know what they represent in their words and deeds.

Most of the ones who I've heard open their mouths are blatant christofascists, historical revisionists, racists, sexists, etc. My assessment that they want to turn us into a "Christian Saudi Arabia" is based on their words and deeds (listen to their talking points, there's a lot of Christian nation, Seven Mountains Mandate and the like talk).

Re: Embrace the irony? (1)

Anonymous Coward | about a month and a half ago | (#47386397)

Most of the ones who I've heard open their mouths are blatant christofascists, historical revisionists, racists, sexists, etc.

This.

I keep hearing the "But, but, that's not really the Tea Party!" nonsense. I tell them the same thing every other group gets told:

These people are operating under your colors. They represent you, whether you like it or not. Don't like it? Do something about it. Or you can play at being the Catholic church, sweep it under the rug, say, "But, but, it's only a comparatively few..." and have everyone make altar boy jokes about you, forever.

Kick the Koch-suckers out of the Tea Party. Or deal with the fact that your Party is reprehensible.

Re: Embrace the irony? (-1)

Anonymous Coward | about a month and a half ago | (#47385955)

Herp derp. You people are so fucking retarded it's painful to read your drivel.

Re:Embrace the irony? (0)

Anonymous Coward | about a month and a half ago | (#47386121)

You should donate, since you obviously hate grass roots campaigns to reduce the size of the government. You obviously are either benefiting from government corruption or are a retard. This PAC ensures that small grass roots groups are illegal and only the current corrupt organizations are allowed.

Re:Embrace the irony? (1)

dosius (230542) | about a month and a half ago | (#47386143)

Grassroots campaigns? You mean Koch Industries-driven corporate astroturf?

By the way, I receive SSI disability (because as a result of diagnosed mental issues I am unemployable, and I have effectively no family); furthermore I am under the LGBT umbrella - the Tea Party types have been very vocal in saying that they consider my type to be a waste of oxygen, and wouldn't want my support even if I were willing to give it to them.

Re:Embrace the irony? (-1)

Anonymous Coward | about a month and a half ago | (#47386255)

You forgot to mention you were black and that I'm a racisit as you were making up viewpoints for me amongst your other lies. Jackass liberal that thinks oppressing people is ok is all you are.

Re:Embrace the irony? (1)

dosius (230542) | about a month and a half ago | (#47386267)

Sorry, I'm Caucasian. :P

Re:Embrace the irony? (2)

geezer nerd (1041858) | about a month and a half ago | (#47386531)

If you are going to get this into name-calling and shouting of drivel, at least come out from behind the AC mask. The only folks I can see that are preaching oppression of others are the TeaPubs. Please, save me from them.

Re:Embrace the irony? (1)

mrbax (445562) | about a month and a half ago | (#47387433)

Citation needed.

Re:Embrace the irony? (0)

Anonymous Coward | about a month and a half ago | (#47386823)

No, you made a grammar mistake there. It's not that we don't want your support, it's that we don't want to support you. Forever.

Screw you, Lawrence (-1, Flamebait)

Anonymous Coward | about a month and a half ago | (#47385867)

You are no better than those you're railing against. It's not ironic that your idea of protecting free speech and "fixing" government is to use that government to oppress the free speech rights of millions of people. No, that's not irony, that is nothing other than bald faced, power-grabbing lust for control.

You are no different than the Democrats and Republicans who want to grab a bunch of oppressive powers and use them to control people to your own ends.

Re:Screw you, Lawrence (4, Informative)

Em Adespoton (792954) | about a month and a half ago | (#47385901)

No matter what you think of Lessig, I think that the experiment in and of itself is interesting.

It's something that hasn't been tried before. If it doesn't work, a bunch of people are out parts of $5mil. If by some miracle it DOES work... well, then what's the use of decrying it?

The only real downside I can see to this PAC is that people who might have put their time/money into some competing and more effective project put it into this one, pinning more hope on the strategy than maybe they should have.

But unless we see it attempted at least once, we won't really know what effect it will have on the political climate.

So go for it, Larry & Gang! I hope it works.

Re:Screw you, Lawrence (1)

Em Adespoton (792954) | about a month and a half ago | (#47385903)

Oh, and:

$4,738,863
        pledged of $5,000,000 goal

11 hours left
        time remaining to pledge

Re:Screw you, Lawrence (1)

Em Adespoton (792954) | about a month and a half ago | (#47385933)

43651
        pledges

$4,744,105
        pledged of $5,000,000 goal

11 hours left
        time remaining to pledge

Interesting... averaging at $100/pledge.

Re:Screw you, Lawrence (1)

Em Adespoton (792954) | about a month and a half ago | (#47385993)

43986
        pledges

$4,762,949
        pledged of $5,000,000 goal

11 hours left

You know, they might just do it.

But isn't this only phase 2 of 3? It'll be interesting to see how far that $12mil actually goes.

Re:Screw you, Lawrence (1)

tokizr (1984172) | about a month and a half ago | (#47386137)

If I got it correctly he (or whoever else is with him) will match the remaining 6.

And if we meet that goal, we'll get it matched, for a total of $12 million raised.

Re:Screw you, Lawrence (0)

Anonymous Coward | about a month and a half ago | (#47385915)

Are you reading the same article as me?

Re: Screw you, Lawrence (0)

Anonymous Coward | about a month and a half ago | (#47386115)

Oh, those poor corporations! Who are we, the people, to try and stop them from running our country?

It's their God-given right to buy laws!

Politicians making a promise. (1)

Anonymous Coward | about a month and a half ago | (#47385937)

So we're going to elect some politicians that promise to do something different? Where have I heard that before? (Every 2-6 years)

I'm more a fan of the Wolf-PAC strategy - get a constitutional convention by having non-corrupt state-level politicians pass an amendment.

Re:Politicians making a promise. (2)

Concerned Onlooker (473481) | about a month and a half ago | (#47386253)

"...get a constitutional convention by having non-corrupt state-level politicians pass an amendment."

Clearly you haven't been paying attention. State level races are as bad as national level when it comes to money as influence.

"So we're going to elect some politicians that promise to do something different? Where have I heard that before? (Every 2-6 years)"

Your gutless resignation isn't doing any good. Lessig has a great idea and he understands just how fundamentally broken the system is. He is fighting the system from within the system, something I didn't think was possible, but it's a really worthy goal. Be part of an attempted solution. Go donate. (And yes, I have. Twice.)

Re:Politicians making a promise. (2)

Immerman (2627577) | about a month and a half ago | (#47386329)

>He is fighting the system from within the system, something I didn't think was possible
Quite. I have my doubts as to how successful it will actually be in the long term*, but the only other alternative seems to be violent uprising, about which I have even greater doubts as to the wisdom and efficacy of. So I've got my fingers crossed and am cheering him on mightily.

* I'm betting there's 160 or so people who will gladly donate a few tens of millions each out of their pocket change to lobby against such reform if this movement becomes a credible threat. But we are still at least superficially a democracy, and staging a public lobbyist battle against the populace could backfire badly at the polls.

Re:Politicians making a promise. (1)

shutdown -p now (807394) | about a month and a half ago | (#47387223)

And with $12 million, there's a lot of publicity to be bought.

Thinking of Donating? (-1)

Anonymous Coward | about a month and a half ago | (#47385943)

There's a sucker born every minute!

If you take the bait (-1)

Anonymous Coward | about a month and a half ago | (#47385959)

If you take the bait, and this ends up getting funded, do not be surprised when we replace one "ocracy" with another "ocracy."

That's all this guy is after - putting power in his own court by using the government to oppress people who do not agree with his point of view.

Re:If you take the bait (4, Insightful)

Em Adespoton (792954) | about a month and a half ago | (#47386009)

If you take the bait, and this ends up getting funded, do not be surprised when we replace one "ocracy" with another "ocracy."

That's all this guy is after - putting power in his own court by using the government to oppress people who do not agree with his point of view.

At least Lessig has a track record and is putting his name and reputation to this.

Then again, AC has a track record and , er, oh well.

Re:If you take the bait (2)

Impy the Impiuos Imp (442658) | about a month and a half ago | (#47386071)

If you think the system's broken now, try later when the only people who get to run are those who can cobble together enough votes to get government funding, which is to say, the two main parties as they currently stand.

The only people to even touch on that percentage the past fifty years were Ross Perot, who funded himself (this will be illegal now???) and John Anderson, the libertarian candidate in 1980.

Yes, this will fix the problem...in the sense of entrenching the status quo even more.

Thanks but no thanks.

The entire front page of that kickstarter is nothing but generic fix the government platitudes...by design...as many politicians have blabbered about in innumerable campaigns of the past...for the purpose of getting you onboard fantasizing what *you* care about is what *they're* talking about.

Re: If you take the bait (5, Interesting)

JWW (79176) | about a month and a half ago | (#47386187)

Exactly! I refuse it to support Mayday until they stand up for term limits. I asked a question about this in the "Ask Larry about Mayday" story. Then they used a "new and improved format" for his responses and dumped my +5 rated question.

Mayday, if they succeed will give us the same thing we have now, lifetime legislators. Their voucher system will end up a Massive advantage to incumbents.

Re: If you take the bait (1)

sumdumass (711423) | about a month and a half ago | (#47386423)

Am i the only one who thought the may day was about the soviet style communist celebrations?

I have trouble trusting it on name alone. But you have a good point as well ss many others.

Re: If you take the bait (1)

Trailer Trash (60756) | about a month and a half ago | (#47386565)

Am i the only one who thought the may day was about the soviet style communist celebrations?

I have trouble trusting it on name alone. But you have a good point as well ss many others.

You're not the only one who noticed that. The utter cluelessness to start with "May One" and they move to calling it "May Day" is staggering.

Re: If you take the bait (1)

Bing Tsher E (943915) | about a month and a half ago | (#47387999)

Was it clueless, or was it deliberate?

Mayday, incidentally, should be a strikingly American day on the calendar, as it commemorates the May Day Massacre [nbcchicago.com] which happened in Chicago. The people killed were Communists and Anarchists, though, so it isn't gonna go on the Official Holiday Calendar in the US.

Re: If you take the bait (0)

Anonymous Coward | about a month and a half ago | (#47387479)

May Day is an ancient spring festival, and long predates the Soviet Union. It is still celebrated in Western Europe, where it is free of any overt political overtones.

You're stuck in Cold War thinking...

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/May_Day

Re: If you take the bait (2)

guises (2423402) | about a month and a half ago | (#47386445)

The grandparent was talking about some kind of fictional first-past-the-post campaign funding system that no one has proposed. You are saying that the voucher system will give a massive advantage to incumbents. Could you explain your position? Vouchers are given by voters to the candidates of their choosing - how does this give an advantage to incumbents?

Re: If you take the bait (1)

felixrising (1135205) | about a month and a half ago | (#47386463)

And this is worse than the current system how?

Re: If you take the bait (1)

medusa-v2 (3669719) | about a month and a half ago | (#47386691)

... because if you can't fix everything, you'd better not try to fix anything? Guess we'll find out what really happens.

Re: If you take the bait (1)

fustakrakich (1673220) | about a month and a half ago | (#47386829)

If you want to know how well term limits works, you should read up a little on Mexican politics. It's not called the Institutional Party for nothing.

Lessig's position is bullshit. He want to stomp all over the 1st Amendment. Money has no influence of its own. It's people's desire for it, and that is not being addressed.

Re: If you take the bait (0)

Anonymous Coward | about a month and a half ago | (#47387359)

> It's people's desire for it, and that is not being addressed.

So lessig is the one spouting bullshit because the sane approach is to fundamentally change human nature.
Fucking geektards.

Re: If you take the bait (0)

Anonymous Coward | about a month and a half ago | (#47387347)

> I refuse it to support Mayday until they stand up for term limits.

Term limits sound great. But as is the case with every simplistic solution, they are no panacea. Term limits will enable professional lobbyists - they will be the experts with decades of experience and contacts and our elected representatives will be perpetual newbies - easily fooled and manipulated.

The only real answer is more engaged electorate, there are no short-cuts for better governance. But there are impediments and the imbalance of influence enabled by wealth is the biggest one there is.

Re:If you take the bait (1)

sconeu (64226) | about a month and a half ago | (#47387235)

I actually did some minor volunteer work for the Anderson campaign in '80. He ran as an Independent, not as a Libertarian.

I wish I could do this! (-1, Redundant)

EmagGeek (574360) | about a month and a half ago | (#47385967)

Man, I'd love to get $12M from a bunch of suckers on the promise of making government better.

This sounds just like any other congressional campaign or something. It's the same tired crap we hear every couple of years.

"Things are BROKEN! If you don't pay me to fix them, children will starve and women will be forced to have babies they don't want!"

Re:I wish I could do this! (-1)

Anonymous Coward | about a month and a half ago | (#47386001)

Man, I'd love to get $12M from a bunch of suckers on the promise of making government better.

This sounds just like any other congressional campaign or something. It's the same tired crap we hear every couple of years.

"Things are BROKEN! If you don't pay me to fix them, children will starve and women will be forced to have babies they don't want!"

Except that's not how they're acting at all, shit dick.

Re:I wish I could do this! (2)

EmagGeek (574360) | about a month and a half ago | (#47386019)

Are you kidding me? It's called the MAYDAY PAC.

MAYDAY, as in, "OMG this is an emergency! You have to do this or people are going to DIE!"

The very name of the thing is designed to elicit an unnecessary sense of urgency and an irrational emotional state in order to extract money.

It's classic self-serving political behavior.

Re:I wish I could do this! (1)

Anonymous Coward | about a month and a half ago | (#47386347)

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/May_Day not http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Mayday

Re: I wish I could do this! (0)

Anonymous Coward | about a month and a half ago | (#47387661)

> MAYDAY, as in, "OMG this is an emergency! You have to do this or people are going to DIE!"

OK that's it, /. is being raided by some retarded conservative site because only you would be dumb enough to think that's what the name refers to.

It's MAY. DAY. A DAY in MAY. The month. It refers to a point in time. I'll let you figure out why that time is important.

Re: I wish I could do this! (0)

Anonymous Coward | about a month and a half ago | (#47387729)

I wish you luck in educating the users of Slashdot, however after all these years they still don't fucking understand the difference between copyright and trademark, so good luck getting them to understand the difference between mayday and May Day. (And the significant socialist/communist connection in the name they chose is why I have no interest in supporting them.)

Re:I wish I could do this! (2)

Em Adespoton (792954) | about a month and a half ago | (#47386029)

The difference here is that the politicians know that votes are fickle, but money is money.

I just thought of another problem with this though: for money to really speak, it has to at least have the appearance of being a continual stream. That means that once this $12mil warchest is used up, there has to be assurances that there will be ANOTHER war chest lined up to keep supporting things. Otherwise, it's easier to go with the other PAC who wants to keep things as they are, but will only donate $3mil/year.... for the next 20 years.

Lessig has to ensure this thing stays funded not just until the PAC's goals are realized, but until the goals of those being funded are realized. Otherwise, other deeper-running money may speak louder.

Re:I wish I could do this! (1)

EmagGeek (574360) | about a month and a half ago | (#47386053)

That's right. We can't forget the invariable dipping that must come later. I get such pleas in emails from various PACs every single day.

"We've accomplished so much, but we must have your continued support to keep going! Send us even MOAR MONEEZ!"

If it walks like a duck, talks like a duck, and acts like a duck, guess what...

Re:I wish I could do this! (0)

Anonymous Coward | about a month and a half ago | (#47386099)

To have any use they need to continualy get money - so yes, ofcourse they will keep asking for money. Do you think solving problems can just be done with a one-time fee? so this is exactly what they are supposed to do, keep raising money for their cause. (you do not have to agree with their cause, but that does not mean they are scamming you, it means the currents system is set up to require a continious stream of money - even when doing "good")

This quacks distinctively unlike a duck

Re:I wish I could do this! (0)

Anonymous Coward | about a month and a half ago | (#47386369)

Except it is a duck! It is completely indistinguishable from every other sleazeball PAC out there that has its own self-interest at heart.

Re:I wish I could do this! (0)

Anonymous Coward | about a month and a half ago | (#47386269)

It's a witch?

Re:I wish I could do this! (4, Informative)

brownerthanu (1084341) | about a month and a half ago | (#47386089)

it has to at least have the appearance of being a continual stream

Yes I think you are right. I, personally, am willing to support the fund year after year. I hope others will too.

Creative Commons (5, Informative)

Anonymous Coward | about a month and a half ago | (#47386003)

Lessig is the guy who helped get Creative Commons off the ground. He actually does stuff. This isn't the same old story.

Re:Creative Commons (5, Informative)

brownerthanu (1084341) | about a month and a half ago | (#47386087)

Yes. He has a long history of general badassery. There are only a few people who I can think of who have the reputation and intelligence to properly navigate a project of this scale, and he is certainly one of them. I really hope that the fund makes it through to the next stage. It looks like it will.

Re:Creative Commons (3, Insightful)

Charliemopps (1157495) | about a month and a half ago | (#47386771)

Right. I disagree with him for the most part politically. But his work so far in my eyes has been intelligent, refined and not of the sort I have a lot of distaste in. When he disagrees with something I support, I can generally look at his argument as a refutation of my own as apposed to some ad hominem attack. He has a point, I can think about it and argue against it or support it. I usually still feel I'm right, but it's not like a line from Anne Coulter or Alan Baldwin where I know I'm going to disagree before they even finish the sentence. He's a worthy opponent which is a rare thing in this modern, black and white, low brow political scene.

He wants to oppress the poor corporations! (0)

Anonymous Coward | about a month and a half ago | (#47386125)

Is /. being raided by neocon trolls?

Re:He wants to oppress the poor corporations! (1)

dosius (230542) | about a month and a half ago | (#47386163)

Raided? I think they've been here from the beginning.

Made it! (5, Informative)

MalleusEBHC (597600) | about a month and a half ago | (#47386355)

The counter just tipped over $5M a moment ago. Let's see what Lessig et al. can do with our (mine and 47K other people's) money.

Re:Made it! (1)

Blakey Rat (99501) | about a month and a half ago | (#47386519)

If he's successful, he'll take tax money from you and 300 million others and give it to candidates running for office.

If he's unsuccessful, you'll be a sucker and we'll all be a lot better off.

Re:Made it! (0)

no-body (127863) | about a month and a half ago | (#47386969)

If he's successful, he'll take tax money from you and 300 million others and give it to candidates running for office.

If he's unsuccessful, you'll be a sucker and we'll all be a lot better off.

If a functional democratic system treats every candidate the same way in supporting i. e. financing after a certain popularity threshold is reached, who would that entity be other than an entity of the governing system in place?

As it is currently in the US, it's a hotchpotch of corruption destroying the very foundation of democracy. Can't even guarantee voting integrity across the board when some goons thinking doing the right thing are turning the screws somewhere in secret.

As for your aversion of using tax money used - where do you think is all that corporate money coming from? Who gets bilked and taken to the cleaner so the coffers of the "higher ups" in the pyramid - corporations as persons or individuals are overflowing?

Whenever you pay something, someone is taking a cut from it - at least you have the sales tax written on your receipt and there you know what is taken out.

I am happy that I can see my sales tax in roads getting fixed, public places kept in order, traffic light functioning, police working with gangs to keep the violence in check etc.

If you want to call me a sucker, look in the mirror to see one!

Re:Made it! (2)

Blakey Rat (99501) | about a month and a half ago | (#47386977)

I have no problem with laws *limiting* campaign donations. If Lessig's campaign was aimed at that goal, I might even contribute myself.

But I do have a problem with the government taking my tax money, and giving it to some political candidate so they can buy TV commercials. That is what both of his proposals involve.

As for your aversion of using tax money used - where do you think is all that corporate money coming from?

Whether or not it *does* come from there does not change the fact that it *should not* come from there.

Re:Made it! (0)

Anonymous Coward | about a month and a half ago | (#47387009)

Less money to wage the various endless wars.

Re:Made it! (0)

no-body (127863) | about a month and a half ago | (#47387021)

I have no problem with laws *limiting* campaign donations

I have - they should be e-liminated, not limited. There will always be backdoors and workarounds.

Think the US Supreme Court with it's corporate-tinted philosophy would support that or the politicians cutting off their funding?

The system is purely money-driven, doubtful if the idea behind MAYDAY-PAC can change that, but worth a try.

http://www.scu.edu/ethics/publ... [scu.edu]

Re:Made it! (2)

Blakey Rat (99501) | about a month and a half ago | (#47387077)

I have - they should be e-liminated, not limited.

Ok. Fine. That works too. But you're missing the point.

The issue I have with this entire thing is they want to use *my* tax money to buy ads for politicians I don't support. If they have another solution to the problem that doesn't involve spending my money, well great. But that's not what Lessig is soliciting money for right now. He's soliciting money to (effectively) raise my tax rate, with the additional funds going towards political campaigns.

I also have to wonder how many people actually read their proposal instead of the feel good vagueness on the homepage... it seems strange to me that $5 million-worth of donors would actually want this. But maybe I'm just projecting.

The system is purely money-driven, doubtful if the idea behind MAYDAY-PAC can change that, but worth a try.

If the problem is, "money has too much influence", I don't see how adding more money into the system could possibly change that. But hey, whatever.

Re:Made it! (1)

no-body (127863) | about a month and a half ago | (#47387157)

I have - they should be e-liminated, not limited.

Ok. Fine. That works too. But you're missing the point.

The issue I have with this entire thing is they want to use *my* tax money to buy ads for politicians I don't support.

Your point: Well, that has been tried, reducing tax you pay being used for stuff you don't like - try holding back the % used for war spending if you don't like it and see what happens. Looks like a hassle.

The tax system and government should be trustworthy, apparently they are not. Why is a good question. Not sure who the bigger crooks - corporate or government head-hanchos and who is doing more harm to the greater part of a population?

With Lessing - let's see what happens if he can avoid the ego trip and big head from getting Step 1 and Step 2 in his game together and stick to his plans, it may fail or not. Maybe he comes from another angle with more smarts for the better of normal people. Crowd-sourcing and PAC may be new and disappointment is probably big in people about what is happening with no real remedy in sight. With the small amounts of $ 3 and $ 4 spending on campaigns - everyone seems to be doing it now and there is a limit to exploit this.

Maybe he makes written and public contracts with politicians to hold them liable on their promises or better have commitments they later stick to in order to get funded. Sure is better than the humble/mumble backroom stuff going on right now.

It will show.

Re:Made it! (1)

MalleusEBHC (597600) | about a month and a half ago | (#47387165)

First, your taxes are spent on things you don't agree with. So are mine and everyone else's. You have a right to complain about how that money is spent, but nobody sane advocates a system where your taxes are only spent on things with which you agree.

That said, I'm not convinced that spending tax money to support campaigns is the ideal solution. However, it's perhaps the only solution that is politically viable but could still produce meaningful change. The Supreme Court refuses to put any limits on campaign spending, and fat chance for a constitutional amendment to overrule them passing.

Re:Made it! (0)

Anonymous Coward | about a month and a half ago | (#47387923)

We can do a constitutional amendment without engaging Congress - it takes 2/3 of the state houses passing a bill requesting a convention. That's it. The problem is at that point, EVERYTHING is open for discussion as an amendment - stopping marriage equality, a permanent tax cap, total abortion bans, compulsory firearm ownership (and fully automatic ones too!), even allowing individual states to leave the Union at their whim. The danger now is that there's so many gerrymandered state houses that this is actually within the grasp of possibility. That would whip these "amend the state constitution" wackos into an orgiastic frenzy of greed and corruption more than they already are.

Re:Made it! (1)

drinkypoo (153816) | about a month and a half ago | (#47387721)

Either fair elections are important to you, or they aren't. The system you propose is the system we have already (by refusing to consider alternatives) and you will note that your proposal has already been tried and found to be unfair.

If you have an alternate proposal for making elections fair, and letting voices be heard, we're all interested. If all you want to do is complain, why should anyone care?

Re:Made it! (1)

Bing Tsher E (943915) | about a month and a half ago | (#47387965)

'fair' is one of those words like 'good' that are really hard to pin down to what is meant when they are used. Let's substitute in another vague word:

Either good elections are important to you, or they aren't. The system you propose is the system we have already (by refusing to consider alternatives) and you will note that your proposal has already been tried and found to be ungood.

There. That didn't add to or change the meaning of what you typed at all.

Re:Made it! (0)

Anonymous Coward | about a month and a half ago | (#47387163)

> I have no problem with laws *limiting* campaign donations.

Unfortunately for us all the scotus does have a problem with such laws, so that door is closed.
What else you got?

crossed the 5million mark at about 9:30 Eastern. (4, Insightful)

emptybody (12341) | about a month and a half ago | (#47386381)

Well Done All Around.
It sickens me that we must "buy back" our democracy.

Re:crossed the 5million mark at about 9:30 Eastern (2)

phantomfive (622387) | about a month and a half ago | (#47386627)

If the people don't put effort into democracy, it will disappear. By definition. Voting is cool but it's not enough to make a democracy.

Re:crossed the 5million mark at about 9:30 Eastern (1)

Mystiq (101361) | about a month and a half ago | (#47387003)

"Voting is cool but it's not enough to make a democracy." True in so many ways.

You did read the bits about the fact that voting seems to have no effect most of the time? [davidalbouy.net] (Or how about this one [washingtontimes.com] .)

Anecdotal evidence could work here just as well. Citizens United represents everything you need to know about politics in the United States. If you don't have enough money, you don't have enough "free speech." The polls say more than 90% of the country does not want Comcast to buy Time Warner Cable, and for some good reasons. Do you think that'll sway the regulators, who are being smooched up the ass by Comcast lobbyists?

Or what about what happened to Obama's election promises about getting rid of lobbyists and being transparent? I do believe he was pressured by the incumbents into changing his mind. He might have been honest when he first got elected, but, as they say, the system is too strong. He got borged into it.

Re:crossed the 5million mark at about 9:30 Eastern (1)

Bing Tsher E (943915) | about a month and a half ago | (#47387977)

Or what about what happened to Obama's election promises about getting rid of lobbyists and being transparent? I do believe he was pressured by the incumbents into changing his mind. He might have been honest when he first got elected, but, as they say, the system is too strong. He got borged into it.

Or, he was a lying, conniving SOB from the start, and like any other politician said anything he had to to get elected. Our only option is to cut off the air supply (taxes.)

It's all about the power, baby.

Re:crossed the 5million mark at about 9:30 Eastern (0)

Anonymous Coward | about a month and a half ago | (#47386961)

Congress has wasted far more than the cost of our donations in the last year alone. I'm happy that I will soon have the opportunity, hopefully, to stop paying government buffoons to steal/waste/divert the money we pay in taxes. I don't know about you, but my contribution to Mayday.us pales in comparison.

NR

Re:crossed the 5million mark at about 9:30 Eastern (1)

BitZtream (692029) | about a month and a half ago | (#47387543)

Then you shouldn't have allowed it to be sold in the first place.

The whole thing is still silly, a single person like Bill Gates, Larry Ellison or Steve Job's wife (to pick the popular easy to recognize names) can easily out fund this PAC with nothing more than a signature and a laugh about it ... there are thousands of people who can do it. This PAC is one.

Re:crossed the 5million mark at about 9:30 Eastern (0)

Anonymous Coward | about a month and a half ago | (#47387733)

Doesn't sicken me. Price isn't blood.

Yet.

From Canada (2)

Valtor (34080) | about a month and a half ago | (#47386387)

I am Canadian and actually wanted to pledge for this. :-)

Hope this works out for you guys.

Re:From Canada (2)

rewarp (1736742) | about a month and a half ago | (#47386439)

Considering how the US government screws non-US countries, I would have donated too. Hope it all works out.

20:00 MST July 4 total (0)

Anonymous Coward | about a month and a half ago | (#47386479)

At 20:00 (8:00 PM), July 4 Mountain Standard Time, the total is $5,039,693. Apparently the extra ~300,000.- came in between when it was posted and now. I don't know if Lessig's PAC is as widely known as it could be, but online support will spread to wider sources. He will likely need them if he is going to his his next goal (and I *really* would like him to his his next goal).

Interesting... (0)

Anonymous Coward | about a month and a half ago | (#47386487)

He'll probably take a bullet for his efforts, but bravo.

Re:Interesting... (1)

Mystiq (101361) | about a month and a half ago | (#47387027)

The civil unrest is pretty tangible on the circles I visit on the Internet, and that's spilling over into Real Life (tm). Congress' approval rating is at an all-time low. This country has been around 400 years. It's never been lower. (Okay, it was probably lower back when the Tea Party actually meant something.)

Now, I'm not saying it's going to happen, but sometimes I think this country just needs another civil war against its government. After all, the United States was founded by British colonialists taking up arms against their government. Why couldn't it happen again? I'm sure some parts of the country are closer to doing so than others.

It's hard to fight back within the bounds of the law when the law is so against you.

Re: Interesting... (1)

cyber-vandal (148830) | about a month and a half ago | (#47387249)

It's also pretty hard to fight back when the other side is so much better armed than you. A bunch of NRA members with assault rifles won't last long against tanks and fighter jets without outside support and the most powerful of the US' enemies are too far away to give any meaningful support and taking that support would immediately lose any popular support you might get.

Oligarchy or democracy? (0)

Anonymous Coward | about a month and a half ago | (#47387827)

I hope America starts to realize how important this is. We are not a democracy any more. We are an oligarchy. And if you don't agree to that, atleast agree that we have swayed towards an oligarchy over the past 20 years.

Load More Comments
Slashdot Login

Need an Account?

Forgot your password?

Submission Text Formatting Tips

We support a small subset of HTML, namely these tags:

  • b
  • i
  • p
  • br
  • a
  • ol
  • ul
  • li
  • dl
  • dt
  • dd
  • em
  • strong
  • tt
  • blockquote
  • div
  • quote
  • ecode

"ecode" can be used for code snippets, for example:

<ecode>    while(1) { do_something(); } </ecode>