5 ms·

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

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.

fleitz 12y 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 12y ago
  Check out https://mayday.us/the-plan https://mayday.us/the-plan and also http://reform.to/#/reforms http://reform.to/#/reforms for specific pieces of legislation that will be the 1st step in addressing the problem.
- floatrock 12y 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_walk_to_political_reform 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/ 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_amendments_to_the_United_States_Constitution 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-constitutional-convention-over-5579322.php 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.
  - jessaustin 12y ago
    ...a constitutional convention that would amend the Constitution to overturn Citizen's United. That's a great deal of effort to overturn a ruling which was literally this: a few dudes who made a video critical of Hillary Clinton are allowed to advertise for the sale and viewing of that video. I haven't seen the video myself and don't particularly care to do. I'm sure it's a horrible movie made by horrible people. However, it seems like really basic political and commercial speech, which ought to be protected from government interference. If Lessig wants to overturn that, I'm glad he will fail. Why not a constitutional amendment for Eldred?
    - floatrock 12y ago
      There's literally what a case decides, and there's effectively what it allows. Effectively it opens the door for unlimited campaign spending by anonymous donors. Have you ever donated to a campaign? How much? $20, $100? Perhaps $1000 if you've got money to burn? What did it get you? A thank you form letter from some intern staffer? That's cute. Now, if you allow unlimited anonymous donations, we're talking about order-of-magnitude $10k, $100k. NOW you've got the politician's ear. Think the people who donate on the order of your annual salary are going to be whispering the same thing the people who donate $20 want their representative to hear? More importantly, if you're a career politician looking to secure $1M for your next campaign 4 years down the line, are you going to spend your time courting 50k grassroots donors, or are you going to just find 10 people to attend your $100k-a-plate fundraiser? (+/- PAC rules on staying "independent" of course... just "fire" your campaign manager and give him a recommendation for a consulting gig... the $100k is actually for the independent consulting organization). It's a no brainer who you're going to represent. So, now we have very wealthy people who can effectively donate unlimited sums of money anonymously outside of campaign disclosure laws (and therefore outside of unwanted public spotlight that would otherwise discourage them) to push for their interests. When the only people who exert influence are the absurdly wealthy, well that starts to sound more like an oligarchy, not a representative democracy. Seems like a good enough cause to amend the constitution to me.
      - rayiner 12y ago

fleitz 12y 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 12y ago
Check out https://mayday.us/the-plan https://mayday.us/the-plan and also http://reform.to/#/reforms http://reform.to/#/reforms for specific pieces of legislation that will be the 1st step in addressing the problem.
floatrock 12y 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_walk_to_political_reform 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/ 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_amendments_to_the_United_States_Constitution 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-constitutional-convention-over-5579322.php 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.
- jessaustin 12y ago
  ...a constitutional convention that would amend the Constitution to overturn Citizen's United. That's a great deal of effort to overturn a ruling which was literally this: a few dudes who made a video critical of Hillary Clinton are allowed to advertise for the sale and viewing of that video. I haven't seen the video myself and don't particularly care to do. I'm sure it's a horrible movie made by horrible people. However, it seems like really basic political and commercial speech, which ought to be protected from government interference. If Lessig wants to overturn that, I'm glad he will fail. Why not a constitutional amendment for Eldred?
  - floatrock 12y ago
    There's literally what a case decides, and there's effectively what it allows. Effectively it opens the door for unlimited campaign spending by anonymous donors. Have you ever donated to a campaign? How much? $20, $100? Perhaps $1000 if you've got money to burn? What did it get you? A thank you form letter from some intern staffer? That's cute. Now, if you allow unlimited anonymous donations, we're talking about order-of-magnitude $10k, $100k. NOW you've got the politician's ear. Think the people who donate on the order of your annual salary are going to be whispering the same thing the people who donate $20 want their representative to hear? More importantly, if you're a career politician looking to secure $1M for your next campaign 4 years down the line, are you going to spend your time courting 50k grassroots donors, or are you going to just find 10 people to attend your $100k-a-plate fundraiser? (+/- PAC rules on staying "independent" of course... just "fire" your campaign manager and give him a recommendation for a consulting gig... the $100k is actually for the independent consulting organization). It's a no brainer who you're going to represent. So, now we have very wealthy people who can effectively donate unlimited sums of money anonymously outside of campaign disclosure laws (and therefore outside of unwanted public spotlight that would otherwise discourage them) to push for their interests. When the only people who exert influence are the absurdly wealthy, well that starts to sound more like an oligarchy, not a representative democracy. Seems like a good enough cause to amend the constitution to me.
    - rayiner 12y ago