How to use a super PAC to kill super PACs

http://www.washingtonpost.com/blogs/the-switch/wp/2014/07/02/how-to-use-a-superpac-to-kill-superpacs/

by aaronlifshin • 12 years ago

92 36 12 years ago

jparker165• 12 years ago

This is incredibly important. For all the really impassioned conversation about the broken state of US politics (on HN and elsewhere), the Mayday PAC is one of the very few legitimate plans-of-action. It's no silver bullet, but 1000% a needed step toward reform and worth your support.

fleitz4• 12 years ago

It might be interesting if they had more of a platform, than 'fixing broken government', or 'fundamental reform', everyone wants that.

The entire point of government is to figure out what those statements really mean...

aaronlifshin• 12 years ago

Check out https://mayday.us/the-plan and also http://reform.to/#/reforms for specific pieces of legislation that will be the 1st step in addressing the problem.

floatrock5• 12 years ago

Mayday is run by Lawrence Lessig of Creative Commons fame (the guy also did a lot of work with Aaron Schwartz). He has very specific plans on what he wants this PAC to do. Check out his March TED talk for example: http://www.ted.com/talks/lawrence_lessig_the_unstoppable_wal...

The problem and his strategy are laid out in his (free CC-licensed) book The USA is Lesterland: http://lesterland.lessig.org/ As with all big ideas, that requires a bit more time to digest than a HN comment. Plus, he's a better writer than I am.

The main idea of his PAC is if political bills can only happen in our system with the approval of 'Big Money', you need Big Money to pass the reform that would get rid of Big Money's influence. Hence, you need a PAC that gets involved in specific races and puts pressure on candidates who don't support the changes they're pushing for.

On a more broader level, Lessig is one of the big names in a loose coalition pushing for a constitutional convention that would amend the Constitution to overturn Citizen's United. The neat thing about such a convention is it's a checks-and-balances way that the popular vote can effectively by-pass their congressional representatives. This has happened only once before: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Convention_to_propose_amendment...

This can happen if 2/3's of states agree to participate. California just passed a "we're in" bill a few days ago, joining Vermont. Similar bills are pending in other states: http://www.sfgate.com/politics/article/California-seeks-cons...

This is actually one of the few non-partisan issues that both sides can agree on. Well, the constituents of both sides... most representatives hate this idea, which is exactly why you need a well-funded PAC to exert influence onto them.

viggity• 12 years ago

Everyone hates Washington Special Interests, unless of course it is their special interest. Then it is righteous.

jgj• 12 years ago

Slightly relevant: Lessig is currently doing an AMA (with Jack Abramoff) over on reddit [1].It's only an hour old so there's still a chance that your question might be answered.

[1] http://www.reddit.com/r/IAmA/comments/29nq9p/lawrence_lessig...

snowwrestler3• 12 years ago

For me the association with Jack Abramoff damages Larry Lessig's credibility on the topic of corruption. Abramoff has no special insight into the problem; nothing he did was particularly innovative or insightful. He simply did things that everyone knows is wrong, and got famous because he got caught.

Abramoff demonstrated that he would do or say anything to succeed in lobbying. Now that he's a convicted felon, he's doing and saying anything to succeed as a pundit. He's exactly the same person; only the context has changed.

That Lessig takes him seriously makes me think that Lessig is dangerously naive about the system and people he is criticizing.

dang• 12 years ago

The submission title ("Larry Lessig's PAC is fighting big money in politics with crowdsourced Bitcoin") was not only highly editorialized, it was linkbaity (Bitcoin is barely mentioned). Submitters: this is against the HN guidelines. Please don't do it.

The article title isn't great either. We can change it if someone suggests an accurate, neutral replacement, preferably using language from the article. Usually an article contains a natural such title in its first paragraph, but I don't see one here.

sp3322• 12 years ago

End of the second paragraph: launching a super PAC that would dismantle the modern-day campaign finance system

robrenaud• 12 years ago

My wife pointed this out to me today and said she wanted to give $200 because the issue is very important to her. We gave $500.

fleitz4• 12 years ago

Said every SuperPAC ever.

What politician isn't for fixing broken government?

Who is standing up for broken government?

What congress isn't committed to fundamental reform?

BrandonMarc2• 12 years ago

Exactly. Just the other day, Obama proclaimed that 80% of US citizens want immigration reform. When it's worded that vaguely, sure, that's true ... the vast majority want that. But "reform" means different things to different people, and very often the opposite things.

Worse, it's often mutually exclusive. In fact, "reform" to some people means ensuring we do not do the things that "reform" means to others.

Consider ... does immigration reform mean?

• keeping families together

• amnesty

• legal worker status

• in-state college tuition for non-citizens

• a fence, wall, drones, troops, sensors

• stopping Mexican troops when they cross the border

• dealing with cartels who vandalize billboards to threaten US officials (plato o plomo)

• ... etc

Many people want some of these things to happen, and want some of these things to not happen. Yet they all want "reform".

The same is true for every "reform" of "broken" government.

ericd• 12 years ago

This is very specifically about campaign finance reform, not about "fixing broken government". Their thesis is that no fix can happen while politicians are forced to spend their time catering to very rich folks in order to keep their jobs, and this is meant to help us towards a solution.

spiek• 12 years ago

They raised ~1 mil in 2 weeks. So they thought they could then raise 5x that amount in 2x the time? How is that a rational conclusion?

fleitz4• 12 years ago

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

sp3322• 12 years ago

Sure, if they spent the first million on advertising :)

twoodfin• 12 years ago

I don't see how subsidizing candidates who agree to donation limits will work. In the last few Presidential elections we've already blown past the viability of the existing public funding.

Anyway, I am one of those rare folks who thinks there's not enough money in politics. Or at least that we shouldn't worry about the money that's already there. The Center for Responsive Politics (a pro-reform group) estimates that total Federal direct election spending reached $6 billion in 2012[1]. Even if "shadowy groups" spent twice that over again (they didn't), that's $18 billion worth of spending to influence the future of a $3.6T government regulating a $15T economy.

To put it another way, $18B is less than half the annual revenue of the Coca Cola company, or only 6x what Americans spend on scented candles every year.

[1] http://www.opensecrets.org/news/2012/10/2012-election-spendi...

BrandonMarc2• 12 years ago

Good points. McCain & Feingold passed campaign finance reform about 10 years ago, for the claimed purpose of getting money out of politics.

What that bill did succeed in doing was put more boundaries in place for less-powerful entities, while ensuring the more-powerful entities can do what they want, via fiat, loophole, secrecy, whatever.

Mission accomplished?!

skyebook• 12 years ago

Republic, Lost[0] is a really good read on this (even if it is by Lessig himself). He lays out how he would see the process working, I believe at the Presidential level. The basic idea is running on a platform that promises change as well as a commitment to step down once said change is accomplished. With the amount of money already wrapped up in politics (especially between two large parties), it strikes me as a tough sales pitch for either party's old guard.

To your point about there not being enough money in politics: I'd agree with you if money existed in a vacuum for its own sake. The question should arguably be is there enough/too much purchasable influence in politics.

[0]http://republic.lessig.org

rayiner2• 12 years ago

Note that the $6 billion is for a Presidential election year. The last mid-term Congressional year (2010) was $4 billion. The way these are accounted, there is no election spending for 2009 or 2011 (spending for 2009 is counted towards the 2010 election). Thus, we're talking about $2.5 billion per year, or less than Americans spend each year on scented candles.

trybaj• 12 years ago

I'm a little disappointed it's not called suicide PAC.

nardi• 12 years ago

I have donated twice, and I hope everyone here donates as well. This is the first step toward fixing our democracy. If you want to get corporate bribery and cronyism out of politics, it's time to put your money where your mouth is.

snowwrestler3• 12 years ago

I really like that Lessig is doing this because it is a concrete test of his assertion that money distorts politics.

If Mayday PAC raises their money (and I hope they do), they will go into 5 House races and attempt to make campaign finance reform the determining factor in how voters choose their representative.

If they succeed, it will ironically demonstrate that Lessig is right about the power of money to shape the mind of the electorate.

But if they spend the money and fail to make campaign finance reform a major voter issue, it will be a demonstration that money is actually not particularly distorting. (I think this is likely; voters typically care a lot more about issues or ideology than process.)

The most annoying aspect of the Mayday PAC coverage is watching tech reporters breathlessly report the most banal aspects of any political campaign, like this:

Then there's the question of what Mayday PAC will spend its resources on. As a super PAC, the outfit isn't allowed to give directly to campaigns. But it can spend unlimited amounts to promote one candidate over another, or to defend a candidate from attacks. There are even more choices Mayday PAC will have to make. For advertising alone, you can choose from radio ads, TV ads and online ads. You can take out ads on broadcast TV, satellite TV or cable. You can pick the time of day. You can conduct a massive air war that reaches everybody in a market, or you can spend more on selectively targeted ads that simultaneously show one household a 30-second spot tied to gun control and their next-door neighbor an ad linked to healthcare.

brenschluss• 12 years ago

But if they spend the money and fail to make campaign finance reform a major voter issue, it will be a demonstration that money is actually not particularly distorting.

No, it would be a demonstration that money, for many voters, may not initially appear distorting. It could also be a demonstration that some voters, like you, are largely apathetic to whether or not a political process is influenced by money.

snowwrestler3• 12 years ago

If they spend a lot of money, and it has no effect, that would put a dent in the theory that money always has an effect.

They'd be in good company, though. The Sunlight Foundation found no correlation between the outside spending in the 2012 federal elections and race outcomes.

vijayr• 12 years ago

Can someone explain how this is going to work? They are going to send a handful of representatives to washington - what is the guarantee that those representatives won't change their stand once they get elected (or the money dries up)? And who choses which candidates to support?

Also, isn't 12 million (assuming they raise that much) too small? May be it is a good start.

Not trying to be negative, just trying to understand what their plan is.

fleitz4• 12 years ago

Pass a bunch of laws outlawing what they perceive to be wrong with democracy, ignore the unintended consequences, raise money based on those consequences, pass more laws, create more unintended consequences, raise more money.

Basically they are going to do exactly what everyone has done before because their plan is to do exactly what everyone has done before, which is why they are raising money to get money out of politics, apparently this solution has eluded us for years because no one could raise $2.6 million dollars.

How to use a super PAC to kill super PACs

Related Stories