How to use a super PAC to kill super PACs
washingtonpost.com
washingtonpost.com
[1] http://www.reddit.com/r/IAmA/comments/29nq9p/lawrence_lessig...
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.
The entire point of government is to figure out what those statements really mean...
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.
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?
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.
That is a key distinction: the first follows from the government's inability to restrict free speech, whether or not it takes money to produce that speech (in this case, a documentary). The second follows from the ability of the government to reasonably regulate the candidates themselves and their activities.
If Lessig wants to overturn Citizens United, I too hope he fails. Because that means the West Virginia legislature can ban Sierra Club from creating videos about the environmental destruction caused by coal mining. It means that the government could ban Sicko (produced by the Weinstein Company).
Citizens United was not a "money is speech case." It was a "movies are speech" case.
> It does not say that the government cannot prevent candidates from taking unlimited amounts of money for their campaigns.
Sure, they're just making a documentary. That happens to come out during an election campaign. And it's advertised heavily with the same language as campaign slogans. And given away for free to anyone who will listen.
But it's not political spending, it's free speech.
The problem is it's both.
We're still effectively in a situation where large interests can collectively pool their resources together anonymously to win far more influence than the people who are supposed to be democratically represented here.
But more perversely, it's hijacking free speech as a backdoor loophole into political gerrymandering. For every Sierra Club citizen's group, there are far more WalMarts or Koch Industries with far deeper pockets. The Sierra Club dues-paying members are being drowned out by the voices of the few and wealthy -- again, it's looking like an oligarchy, not a representative democracy. Yes, you can't stop something like that without limiting free speech, which of course nobody wants either.
As far as I see it, once a loophole like this is identified, you can either argue for abolishing all campaign finance laws (since we've found ways around them), or you reconcile campaign finance laws with free speech that looks like and quacks like campaign expenditures.
What the legal framework for that would be, you're right, I don't know. Call it overturning McCutcheon vs. FEC if you don't want to call it Citizens United. Or just call it Campaign Finance Reform. There's no single boogeyman here, it's a refactor of the system we're talking about.
The reality is money buys elections.
Given the choice between 10 donors that can afford to just drop well above the median annual salary (albeit as 'independent' documentaries) and trying to rally 50k mom-and-pop donors that contribute $20 each, it's a no-brainer which is the easier route to electoral success.
The question is do you want to be represented by the voice of the 10 or the 50k?
We're not talking about overturning the first. We're trying to figure out how to reconcile the first with decentralizing some very centralized influence over public policy.
You should be distrustful of any centralized political system. That's what we have, not by design but by reality.
You're not going to fix the problems you want to fix, because you don't see how they are reinforced by every other aspect of the system.
The solution is to chip away at this self-reinforcing feedback loop. Decentralize the fundraising through effective campaign finance limits and you create more dependence on small donors. Small donors care more about having their beliefs represented than choosing the winning horse (and the influence that comes with the winning horse being indebted to you).
The incumbency bias is a circular result of centralized money going for the easy bet. Decentralize public funding and the easy bet becomes less clear, weakening the feedback loop.
What the decision "effectively" does is acknowledge the fact that people don't lose free speech rights when speaking as a group. Without it, political speech by companies, unions, nonprofits, etc. would be stripped of First Amendment protection, and thus could be deemed illegal at the whims of politicians (most likely the ones already in power).
I assume that's not what you want.
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...
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?!
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.
What politician isn't for fixing broken government?
Who is standing up for broken government?
What congress isn't committed to fundamental reform?
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.
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.
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.
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.
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.
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.
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.