Steve Wozniak Endorses Lessig's Mayday Super PAC
theinternethasasuperpac.com
theinternethasasuperpac.com
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]
[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.)
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?
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..
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
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.
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.
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.
I seem to be going round again
Unclear why you (US citizens) aren't all over this stuff.
-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?
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.
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 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.
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.