Steve Wozniak Endorses Lessig's Mayday Super PAC(theinternethasasuperpac.com)
theinternethasasuperpac.com
Steve Wozniak Endorses Lessig's Mayday Super PAC
http://theinternethasasuperpac.com/
11 comments
I need more words and less marketing to convince me to send my cash to people who have far more cash than I do. I need a very specific and very concrete explanation of what they plan to do with it.
Is there a deeper link to documents with more detailed adult explanations of what they plan to do, how they plan to do it, and the specific criteria for support for a candidate? One that doesn't assume that I'm ignorant of the current state of campaign finance, SuperPACs, and recent SCOTUS decisions? Maybe a few names? I assume something like this exists, but I can't find it.
Or is this just LessigPAC, and I'm supposed to give money because I'm a fan or something?
Is there a deeper link to documents with more detailed adult explanations of what they plan to do, how they plan to do it, and the specific criteria for support for a candidate? One that doesn't assume that I'm ignorant of the current state of campaign finance, SuperPACs, and recent SCOTUS decisions? Maybe a few names? I assume something like this exists, but I can't find it.
Or is this just LessigPAC, and I'm supposed to give money because I'm a fan or something?
It is completely explained on the site about the money.
1. Whatever is raised is matched by some well-off people who are willing to match.
2. They are raising $12m total
3. The money goes into selected campaigns where they have a good chance to turn the election and make the candidates support the reform agenda. They hire professionals who do this kind of thing.
4. None of the raised money is used for admin expenses.
5. If it works out, they continue into 2016 to turn more elections.
The question is, do people give a s*? Sadly, I'm pessimistic.. Drop $50 on this I'd say a pretty cheap lottery ticket considering how sick the system currently is..
1. Whatever is raised is matched by some well-off people who are willing to match.
2. They are raising $12m total
3. The money goes into selected campaigns where they have a good chance to turn the election and make the candidates support the reform agenda. They hire professionals who do this kind of thing.
4. None of the raised money is used for admin expenses.
5. If it works out, they continue into 2016 to turn more elections.
The question is, do people give a s*? Sadly, I'm pessimistic.. Drop $50 on this I'd say a pretty cheap lottery ticket considering how sick the system currently is..
I went through to donate and I have to be an American citizen to donate.. when big multi-nationals are pushing America (and by extension the planet) around then why should individuals from multiple-different-nations not be able to respond?
There are laws against accepting campaign money from foreigners that probably apply to PAC money too
Did a quick search: PAC money can't come from foreign nationals, though (wonderfully enough!) foreign corporations with subsidiaries in the US are able to donate.
I don't mean to nit-pick, but PAC money can come from foreign nationals if they have a 'green card'.
There is a contradiction in the rules. One rule says, 'permanent residents (green card holders) are OK' but then another says 'no foreign nationals.' I guess this could apply to the vanishingly small set of permanent residents who don't have a foreign citizenship anywhere.
Thanks for pointing this out. As far as I have seen, the rule has been applied so as to construe 'foreign nationals' as people who have neither US citizenship or permanent resident status. Basically, if you are entitled to the protections given by the Bill of Rights, you may donate to political campaigns.
You mean people who have no citizenship whatsoever?
They should add an option so that foreigners can give money to individual americans on there - who in turn give it to the PAC.
IANAL: But please be careful. You may be breaking the law if you do this. Dinesh D'Souza is going to do jail time for something similar (using straw donors to circumvent existing campaign finance laws and limits).
[deleted]
Well, the system they're batteling against is known as one dollar, one vote, not one Yen, Peso or Roebel. :-)
They have a long way to go. I'm not sure they're going to make $5m. They only have $1.1m raised now, and only 2 weeks left.
Yes, it's running a bit behind that curve.
On the plus side, there is at least another 7 million out there that people want to go to this cause, as we can see by the matching amounts.
For the moment there is a 'all or nothing' effect, but that's for psychological reasons, and it may be working against them at this point. The people willing to put 7 million toward the cause probably still care, and will find other ways to donate it.
Please donate, and consider checking "I want my donation to be used to support MAYDAY.US, even if the goal has not been met by July 4th." This is one of those causes that seems fundamentally worth while to me, and your donation will mean even more if they come up short, because it will give them funds to keep fighting.
You should donate now. https://pledge.mayday.us/pledge
On the plus side, there is at least another 7 million out there that people want to go to this cause, as we can see by the matching amounts.
For the moment there is a 'all or nothing' effect, but that's for psychological reasons, and it may be working against them at this point. The people willing to put 7 million toward the cause probably still care, and will find other ways to donate it.
Please donate, and consider checking "I want my donation to be used to support MAYDAY.US, even if the goal has not been met by July 4th." This is one of those causes that seems fundamentally worth while to me, and your donation will mean even more if they come up short, because it will give them funds to keep fighting.
You should donate now. https://pledge.mayday.us/pledge
Does anyone know what the significance of the $5 million goal is? Did they look at the political landscape and decide that was how much money they needed to make an impact or is that just the amount they thought they could raise?
If you click the mayday button you get this page:
https://mayday.us/
and this setence: "For 2014, our goal is $12 million. With that money, we will make fundamental reform the key issue in five congressional races. And win."
Also they raised 1 Mio before and everything gets doubled by individual donnors.
https://mayday.us/
and this setence: "For 2014, our goal is $12 million. With that money, we will make fundamental reform the key issue in five congressional races. And win."
Also they raised 1 Mio before and everything gets doubled by individual donnors.
> If the group succeeds in raising its goal of $12 million by the end of June, it intends to use the 2014 campaign cycle as a testing ground – targeting five House races to demonstrate whether it can propel candidates who are committed to a system in which small donors have a much greater influence. (The group will announce its targets later this summer.)
Considering their plan is to target and win 5 specific races, they're probably basing the number on previous campaign expenditures of those five 'targets,' planning to outspend them.
Considering their plan is to target and win 5 specific races, they're probably basing the number on previous campaign expenditures of those five 'targets,' planning to outspend them.
What is amazing me is all the ignorance that is so boldly expressed by lessig:
a democracy is not a republic since republic was designed to kill the democracy.
The biggest argument against republic being a possible implementation of democracy was made centuries ago by Pericles. He stated that any system favouring money will end in ploutocracy (having only the richer's interests being represented). Republic filter's out a lot of people from the game of being eligible. It selects on a random criteria that will always end to be money at the end.
Republic whatever its implementation can be always will result in a feedback loop based on resources: money, media time, «fame», knwoledge, wisdom... As a result whatever the rule you make it will always end up favouring in the representation the guys with money. (you need exposure of your argument to win, that always ends up in making a 1:1:1 relation of exposure=money=probability of winning)
Democracy's goal however is to have all the population being represented. So as you can see these 2 systems are de facto mutually exclusive.
The big question is «are the human naturally bad?» If answer is yes: you choose republic to ensure only a subset of «capable citizens» are elected, but in the process you will mathematically converge towards a ploutocracy that will favor the more powerful/rich. Else, if all citizen are considered equally «capable» you can pick up any random citizen for forming a government. Hence living in a republic is NOT possibly living in a democracy.
Republic is just an aristocracy: it ensures the representant of the people are selected in a small subset of the population that tends to have more patrimonial. subset of the population that will tend to pass law to ensure the conservatism in the society so that their money is secured.
The biggest argument against republic being a possible implementation of democracy was made centuries ago by Pericles. He stated that any system favouring money will end in ploutocracy (having only the richer's interests being represented). Republic filter's out a lot of people from the game of being eligible. It selects on a random criteria that will always end to be money at the end.
Republic whatever its implementation can be always will result in a feedback loop based on resources: money, media time, «fame», knwoledge, wisdom... As a result whatever the rule you make it will always end up favouring in the representation the guys with money. (you need exposure of your argument to win, that always ends up in making a 1:1:1 relation of exposure=money=probability of winning)
Democracy's goal however is to have all the population being represented. So as you can see these 2 systems are de facto mutually exclusive.
The big question is «are the human naturally bad?» If answer is yes: you choose republic to ensure only a subset of «capable citizens» are elected, but in the process you will mathematically converge towards a ploutocracy that will favor the more powerful/rich. Else, if all citizen are considered equally «capable» you can pick up any random citizen for forming a government. Hence living in a republic is NOT possibly living in a democracy.
Republic is just an aristocracy: it ensures the representant of the people are selected in a small subset of the population that tends to have more patrimonial. subset of the population that will tend to pass law to ensure the conservatism in the society so that their money is secured.
Am I being a little bit dumb - their goal is to demonstrate how corrosive money is in "buying" Congressional races by pouring money into congressional races to buy the race to make their point?
I seem to be going round again
I seem to be going round again
Not quite. They're raising campaign money to try and influence five upcoming congressional elections in favor of campaign finance reform. To do that, I imagine they'll run ads in key districts in support of whichever candidate or another will agree to support and advance reform, or at least to unseat an incumbent who's been historically against reform. It's definitely ironic! They even admit as much towards the bottom of the main page; it's just the way politics are in the US raising and spending this much money is pretty much a necessity for the goals they have.
[deleted]
Quite depressing how they don't seem to be able to reach their goal. I would donate in a heart beat, but I'm not a US citizen.
Unclear why you (US citizens) aren't all over this stuff.
Unclear why you (US citizens) aren't all over this stuff.
[deleted]
Can this reach a tipping point? HN may help get it there.
The American Spring?
This is an interesting question. I'm located in Europe so I can't hear what the crowd is humbling.
-Do you think there is enough collective desire for a particular change? It's often hard to rally everyone for a "spring".
-Do you think this action has the power to overturn any decision making in the US democracy?
-Do you think there is enough collective desire for a particular change? It's often hard to rally everyone for a "spring".
-Do you think this action has the power to overturn any decision making in the US democracy?
I doubt it, Canadian here so I can't speak to the mumblings. All I can off is anecdotal information from talking to Americans when I'm down there, and the middle class don't understand how poor they are in America compared to their wealthy. They seem to feel that they're almost wealthy, but what they don't realize is that the difference between the middle and lower classes is a rounding error compared to the wealth of the upper class. They also don't realize that a middle class Canadian has more disposable income than their southern equivalent, and yet Americans receives almost none of the free health care or other social safety nets. As a man whose had 6 major surgeries, two while unemployed after Dell closed up shop in Edmonton, I can say that without that safety net, I may very well have ended up on the street. Which you don't see a lot of here.
All I can off is anecdotal information from talking to Americans when I'm down there, and the middle class don't understand how poor they are in America compared to their wealthy. They seem to feel that they're almost wealthy, but what they don't realize is that the difference between the middle and lower classes is a rounding error compared to the wealth of the upper class.
That's not anecdotal. You're playing mind reader to fit your own political agenda. That's pretty rude to your friends....if even that's true.
They also don't realize that a middle class Canadian has more disposable income than their southern equivalent, and yet Americans receives almost none of the free health care or other social safety nets
And once again, a Canadian doesn't understand that health care isn't free no matter how many times they say it.
That's not anecdotal. You're playing mind reader to fit your own political agenda. That's pretty rude to your friends....if even that's true.
They also don't realize that a middle class Canadian has more disposable income than their southern equivalent, and yet Americans receives almost none of the free health care or other social safety nets
And once again, a Canadian doesn't understand that health care isn't free no matter how many times they say it.
Actually Richard, that's conversation. Americans who do not pursue more detailed of factual news get fed a lot of bullshit.
And when we're talking about disposable income, that means the income after taxes, comparable to Americans after taxes, the health care is FREE because it was covered in the taxes before to make the calculation. We also call it free, because it is free to use the services, not free of cost.
And when we're talking about disposable income, that means the income after taxes, comparable to Americans after taxes, the health care is FREE because it was covered in the taxes before to make the calculation. We also call it free, because it is free to use the services, not free of cost.
Yes, this time with green grass and rainbows and happiness, please!
"Then we got the $1 Million matched by a group of donors who, unlike most political donors, would like to level the playing field, even if it means seeing their influence decreased."
... and with that I lose my trust in this PAC. Human nature has a pull towards being self-serving and this nature is amplified when large sums of wealth are on the line.
... and with that I lose my trust in this PAC. Human nature has a pull towards being self-serving and this nature is amplified when large sums of wealth are on the line.
So what? They're not shareholders, they're donors.
Once money is donated to a Super PAC, it's the PAC's money to do with as they see fit. "PACs may make unlimited expenditures independently of a candidate or political party." Short of the agreement to match funds having extra stipulations (or Lessig putting those wealthy benefactors in charge of the PAC) there is nothing they can do about how the money gets spent.
Once money is donated to a Super PAC, it's the PAC's money to do with as they see fit. "PACs may make unlimited expenditures independently of a candidate or political party." Short of the agreement to match funds having extra stipulations (or Lessig putting those wealthy benefactors in charge of the PAC) there is nothing they can do about how the money gets spent.
Couldn't the donors agree to donate more if the PAC spends the already donated money in a certain way?
They could, but this PAC has only one goal, so the money either gets spend towards that goal or not. The donors would have to spend so much that everyone in the PAC organisation switches sides and goes for political ambition instead.
Wolf-PAC [1] has the same declared goal (both focus on campaign finance reform, informally "getting money out of politics"), and the same means (~~both intend to call for a Constitutional Convention~~ [3]), I wonder if they might consider coordinating their efforts.
Ah, alright, did a cursory comparison of the two. Wolf PAC/Uygur's plan is to overturn key SCOTUS rulings (e.g. Citizens United v. FEC, Buckley v. Valeo) whereas Mayday PAC/Lessig's goal is to "unseat five congresspersons who are on the 'wrong side of this issue'". [2]
[1] http://www.wolf-pac.com/
[2] http://www.latimes.com/nation/politics/politicsnow/la-pn-har...
[3] Edited to note that Lessig's PAC isn't planning on calling for a convention (Lessig himself has called for it in the past, I was making an assumption here.)