The best thing for tech companies to do is to start destroying some political careers. That's the only thing the machine understands and the only thing it's really going to respond to.
Add gerrymandering to the mix, and this tactic becomes even harder to resist, since the effective sidelining of an opposing party means that no matter what else happens, the seat in question stays with the side that already holds it. This is what people mean by "safe" seats, by the way. They're safe for the party. Particular incumbents, not so much.
So yes. If you have a realistic hope of getting what you want it's because you're known to have the power to end careers. If legislators refuse to cooperate, their prospects dim. If an agency gets uncooperative, the legislators who oversee it turn the budget screws, causing pain and wrecking livelihoods until the backer with the biggest stick wins. These are the mechanics of regulatory capture, and they're in operation every day.
Obviously, all of this deeply depressing, and provides an excellent argument for getting private finance out of elections altogether, since that really is the mechanism upon which American-style corruption depends. And while we're at it, de-rigging the vote with non-partisan redistricting and establishing a nation-wide version of the (pre-gutted) Voting Rights Act would go a long way in fostering a government of, by, and for the people.
But in the meantime, when our systems is less like a democracy and more like an oligarchy, getting what you want means playing by the rules that exist. And that means lobbying with both carrot and stick. They hit you, you hit back. And not only do you hit back harder, you hit back so hard that they will never get up again. That's what the SOPA/PIPA backlash did: threatened a sweeping act of maximum violence to an unprecedented number of careers.
It was brutal and it was ugly, but it worked. And it did so when there's not much else that does.
What if the problem is simply that very few voters care about the issue, and that even less would be willing to change their vote over this issue?
For example, most regular voters care about copyright extensions, but the lobbyists do, and so it gets extended time after time.
There are plenty of issues that average 'tech people' dont care about that other professions might. I have not seen any evidence that as a whole technical people care more about whats going on in the world.
When voter turn out is low, it is not because people dont care about the issues. It is because they dont believe their vote is being counted, cant distinguish between candidates, or simply dont think any candidate can lead to the kind of governance they would prefer.
Money alone isn't sufficient to guarantee an election outcome, you still have to execute.
"'American Crossroads, the super PAC founded by Karl Rove, spent $104 million in the general election, but none of its candidates won. The United States Chamber of Commerce spent $24 million backing Republicans in 15 Senate races; only two of them won. Sheldon Adelson, the casino mogul, spent $53 million on nine Republican candidates, eight of whom lost.' It was, as the paper noted, 'A Landslide Loss for Big Money.'"[1]
"When a candidate doubled their spending, holding everything else constant, they only got an extra one percent of the popular vote. It’s the same if you cut your spending in half, you only lose one percent of the popular vote. So we’re talking about really large swings in campaign spending with almost trivial changes in the vote."[2]
[1] - http://reason.com/archives/2014/07/14/dear-liberals-stop-fre...
[2] - http://freakonomics.com/2012/01/12/does-money-really-buy-ele...
That's not saying every dollar is the same, and the money -> influence function is a straight line. But money buys reach and coverage at the very least.
That's a very important point in public corruption debates, since there mere perception of corruption can diminish trust in public institutions. And trust, as it turns out, is their greatest asset. That's why effective anti-corruption laws are written to prohibit actions that simply appear corrupt, along with those that can be proven corrupt beyond all reasonable doubt.
When it comes to public trust, appearance really does matter.
Muffy is a dog. Muffy cannot bark. Therefore, no dogs can bark.
Textbook logical fallacy.
Of course, politicians can and do buy elections. Today's process practically guarantees this will occur.
>to the extent that any good ideas are removed from the public realm with this scheme, we all lose.
There are other ways to ensure that good ideas come to the fore. And, as the ability to raise funds is not solely based on the quality of one's ideas, there is no feasible way that the democratic process can benefit from unrestrained campaign financing and rulings like Citizens United.
"10 things we think we know, but really don't
1. Money buys the votes of the general public. (Maybe savvy donors just donate to candidates who will win in the hopes of influencing them.)" [edit: quote moved]
Money is necessary but not sufficient in order to become elected.
Politics is not about good ideas. Jim Crow laws existed for decades.
But politicians are a simple and superstitious folk, and they do care a lot about fund raising. And in a 50:50 fight, they'll do almost anything for an edge.
Also, while a politician might be in a safe seat, they'll gain a lot of brownie points (e.g. a promotion) if they can funnel some funds to someone in a marginal seat.
That's the sugar coated version. When it comes to people who already have a lot of seniority and don't need the money for their own elections, the ability to transfer funds between their reelection accounts and those of others isn't about "brownie points". It's the raw exercise of political power, and is handled not to praise, but to bury.
If candidates knew this was something their constituents cared about, they might actually run on it.
Who cares if Lessig fails. We're finally talking about campaign finance.
For the longest time, this stuff was of interests only to wonk's wonks. Now it's slowly seeping into common awareness. That's a vital step on the way to (eventual) change. If you've got a link to Ira's show, please don't hesitate to post it.
People also say that regulators are captured by the industry via opportunities they get in a revolving door. They are offered cushy positions at the industry after they stop being politicians, in exchange for favorable votes. I could see this as possibly being a bigger motivator than re election.
Maybe there should be some consequences to not voting according to the policies you ran on. Buy in any case, if most politicians are awayed by lobbying, then being one politician who isn't won't make a huge difference.
It you care about your legacy, and your opponent only cares about getting (re-)elected to benefit from the position, your opponent is at an advantage: Your opponent does not need to "waste" time, money and effort on things that does not improve their chances at (re-)election.
Such a website would be very useful to society, and can be done on city and state levels all around the world.
Beyond that, the art of politics is to make sure you look reasonable at all times, and can make your case both to the decision maker in question, but also to everybody else now watching said decision maker in light of the statements you have made.
This is a rallying cry, and a notification to the FCC chairman that the YC community cares, is paying attention, and has pointed feelings on the matter, both in terms of policy and outcome.
One thing I've learned about trying to motivate someone else to do something - a la Carnegie's "How to win friends and influence people" and Pink's "To Sell is Human" - is to shut up about yourself and focus on the other person/party. Remember, we're all human.
The FCC -- as is common in regulatory agencies releasing proposals with a call for comments -- specifically wants impacted parties to detail how they are impacted (including financial impacts), because the FCC is tasked to take those impacts into account.
But I wonder how it balances individual impacts versus business impacts. Is a thousand people complaining "This ruins my ability to watch netflix" as significant as netflix same comments in terms of its business losses.
I think the FCC cares, otherwise, it wouldn't keep adopting regulation aimed to restrict the degree to which broadband providers can deviate from neutrality.
They've also specifically asked for comments on how their current proposal on how to do that can be improved, and the YC comment letter addresses that question and the more specific subordinate questions asked within it.
2) Send private dectectives to follow them.
3) Dig up dirt from their past.
If you aren't familiar with this, you might be surprised to see who signed it.
This could be pretty interesting. For example, maybe Google could mine the web (or Twitter their tweet data) for public information on politicians and start airing their dirty laundry. For example, if someone Googles a certain politician, it could show that information at the top of the search if the politician doesn't do what they want.
It's democratic (if you are happy for Russian links to count in your senators feeds)