Hacker News Reader

Comment by dangrossman | Hacker News Reader

Why is a representative going to listen to our lobbyist over the MPAA's lobbyist? We can raise enough money to hire someone to work in Washington for us, but I somehow doubt we can consistently raise enough money to make matching campaign contributions so that our lobbyist is taken seriously. Even if we could, it feels fundamentally wrong that we need a self-imposed tax on citizens for their representatives to represent them. Attacking the incentive structure of the system by not having campaigns financed by corporations and interest groups is probably a better place to invest our effort.

View on HN

In France we have a lobby fighting for internet freedom, La Quadrature du Net: http://www.laquadrature.net/

The lobby is only three people, and was started by one guy on his own. He pays himself with donations.

And yet he's been very efficient: almost all newspaper stories on the subject quote him. Also, more and more French politicians understand the electoral weight of the issues, and less and less support restrictive laws such as Hadopi.

I don't see why you couldn't have the same in the states.

We do have similar groups, the EFF is one of the bigger ones. However, they have to compete with the millions of dollars the American recording & media industries have.

It's great to hear La Quadrature du Net does well with so little. We're sure We The Lobby cannot match special interests in terms of money, but we are hoping the causes can resonate given the donations represent the actual voting constituency.

While I'll agree there is something absurd to the idea of citizens paying for the attention of congress, it's also a recognition of how our system currently - and unfortunately - works. Lobbying firms are congress' sole source of education on subjects they often aren't knowledgeable on, such as the internet and piracy.

I'll also agree that serious campaign finance reform needs to happen. That's why We The Lobby is also raising money to support Bernie Sander's proposed amendment (S.J.Res.33) which prohibits corporate spending in all elections, essentially reverses Citizens United, and more. Check it out -> http://www.wethelobby.com/causes/2

>Attacking the incentive structure of the system by not having campaigns financed by corporations and interest groups is probably a better place to invest our effort.

Is it possible to attack an incentive structure so firmly ingrained in to our system? There's always some form of duplicity between governments and their people so I wouldn't expect a way to 100% defeat a poor incentive system. I think crowdsourcing is a good way to compete with big-time corporate lobbyists, not to mention it fits well with the whole "democratic" model politicians act like they support.

http://rootstrikers.org/

This group seems a little conventional but is focused on the funding issue.

I think the idea should be to put complete force behind passing some legislation which in a meaningful way restricts the influence corporations can have over congress.

We The Lobby's main idea thus far is to rally for lobbying money while legislation is being discussed in the House or Senate - just like SOPA / PIPA are being discussed now after the vote has been cancelled.

If someone puts out legislation illustrating what you said, and there is enough popular opinion behind it, we will try and list it on our site.

I'd also encourage you to check out the second cause currently listen on We The Lobby, entitled "Corporations are not people." It is in support of S.J.Res.33, a proposed Amendment by Bernie Sanders which contains verbiage to restrict corporation's influence on congress via campaign donations. Check it out and make a pledge! http://www.wethelobby.com/causes/2

Reply on news.ycombinator.com