doctorow — 2014-06-07T18:01:44-04:00 — #1
awjt — 2014-06-08T01:18:24-04:00 — #2
OK, Done. Anyone else? Ten bucks to oust the Lesters?
hughstimson — 2014-06-08T02:45:50-04:00 — #3
Lawrence Lessig is such an odd-ball choice for reformist hero. And he needs better fitting shirts. But if anything matters right now in US politics this is it.
miasm — 2014-06-08T03:56:38-04:00 — #4
My heart melted with his use of 'grok'.
euansmith — 2014-06-08T06:23:44-04:00 — #5
I'm thinking KICKstarting politicians might be a good idea.
Any chance that the politicians who receive funding would actually stick to their promises once elected?
bathosfear — 2014-06-08T07:21:23-04:00 — #6
I'm missing something here. Leaving aside the paradox of giving money to politicians to vote against giving money to politicians, the factor of scale is bothersome. If they succeed and all funds are matched they say $12 million will get them what they need. While that is a staggering amount of money to me, it is pin money for someone like the Kochs. So if it's that simple why doesn't some iBillionaire simply fund this and that's done? Of course, that would simply escalate activity on the other side, but what is stopping that same thing from happening here?
I'm not knocking this, it may be a wonderful idea. There's simply some missing information.
samsam — 2014-06-08T21:30:51-04:00 — #7
I don't quite understand the title. Are we sending foreign politicians into the US? And how many politicians can you ship for $5M?
Also, is "Kickstarted" (capitalized) now a generic verb? As for as I can tell they're not actually using Kickstarter.
workwatchbuyrpt — 2014-06-08T22:09:32-04:00 — #8
I support this effort, but they could be a little bit more up-front about the fact that any contributions will be made a matter of public record, and will be posted to the open Internet for all to see (admittedly, not by the PAC itself, but by the FEC, and by other organizations that download the data and make it accessible on their own websites).
kpkpkp — 2014-06-08T23:19:19-04:00 — #9
$100 pledged to the initial campaign (I think early heavy support is key to gaining momentum), $50 pledged to the next phase. Come on BoingBoing!
https://my.mayday.us/t/8d66-KEVIN-R-PIERCE (yes, I know it shows $ZERO - Help to change that, ahem)
This matters, a lot.
vallindsay2 — 2014-06-08T23:24:09-04:00 — #10
I really put my head down on this one and dropped $50 their way. The contradiction is only emotionally quelled by the "Fight Fire with Fire" angle, which is indeed a practice that works. Hopefully this will succeed...
cowicide — 2014-06-08T23:48:25-04:00 — #11
In my opinion, it's not like fighting fire with fire. It's like hiring mercenaries that will finally fight for our interests for a change.
cowicide — 2014-06-08T23:54:18-04:00 — #12
I don't quite understand the title.
Start reading much, much more than titles and stop focusing so much on pedantic distractions... and all will be revealed to you. That is, if your goal is understanding and not distractions. Then people will want to engage you in matters of substance.
cowicide — 2014-06-09T00:19:44-04:00 — #13
Leaving aside the paradox of giving money to politicians to vote against giving money to politicians,
There's no paradox, it's taking actions to quell corruption effectively within a complex system. An attack that's useless without funding. There's plenty of fronts attacking the corruption from the outside. Now this is one of many attacks coming from within the inside.
We're flanking the bastards.
andy_hilmer — 2014-06-09T00:28:20-04:00 — #14
So many of the people involved in running it were associated with dumb and corrupt insider "reform" movements in the past that I'm skeptical. I wish them well. There's a chance that they're all sufficiently disillusioned and radicalized that they won't be taken in by operators like Bloomberg and Whitman. Again. So maybe, but… I sort of expect this to fizzle out in the bewildered cloud of well-educated fluff that results from bringing pillows to a chainsaw fight.
cowicide — 2014-06-09T02:50:49-04:00 — #15
So many of the people involved in running it were associated with dumb and corrupt insider "reform" movements in the past that I'm skeptical. I wish them well.
I'm a bit confused. Why would you wish so many dumb and corrupt people well? And, who is dumb and corrupt, exactly?
There's a chance that they're all sufficiently disillusioned and radicalized that they won't be taken in by operators like Bloomberg and Whitman. Again.
Who was taken in by Bloomberg and Whitman? And, what do you mean by "taken in"?
I sort of expect this to fizzle out in the bewildered cloud of well-educated fluff that results from bringing pillows to a chainsaw fight.
Why do you think this is bringing pillows to a chainsaw fight?
And, what do you think is a better plan and/or what would make this current plan more viable?
tomwood10 — 2014-06-09T08:10:23-04:00 — #16
The gerrymandering problem is not created at the US Congressional level, the problem is created at the state legislature level. State legislatures re-draw the US Congressional districts each decade after the census. If the US Congress won't change the districting rules (and why would they?) then the problem has to be attacked at the state legislature level.
philipp — 2014-06-09T08:52:25-04:00 — #17
The main reason why a campaign like this can succeed is that popular opinion (and truth) is on the side of MayOne here.
If we imagine that it takes an ad campaign on TV for amount 1 to convince someone who already has a gut feeling that money corrupts politics in the US, but doesn't quite know where to go (i.e. a message that becomes self-evident if it reaches you)...
And if we further imagine that it takes an acampaign on TV for amount 1000 to convince someone that the rich really need to get richer with benefical laws at the expense of the 99% (a message you need to hammer in over and over)...
... then our $5 million are their $5 billlion.
In addition, MayOne will trigger word of mouth spreading, and its message can hold up further scrutiny. So while the $5 billion message needs to be repeated, and can't rely on free spreading, the $5 million can cause a spark that gets the thing to become self-sustained without further cashflow.
In short, truth is a much cheaper sell. And yet, it may well still be the most difficult undertaking of political reform ever. But also the most important...
andy_hilmer — 2014-06-09T10:30:06-04:00 — #18
The difference between "movements" and "people" is the essence of any response to this. Americans Elect was a dumb and corrupt effort, and the non-political work of the Mayday staff who weren't involved with that is mostly corporate IT and PR which is almost exclusively defined by its relentless struggle (and frequent failure) to avoid being blatantly dumb and corrupt. It's not a direct reflection on the people. Like I said, I wish them well.
Because while I respect Lessig's work and achievements, his focus on copyright and trademark in his law work misses the mark on market corruption and its restraint on human advancement, opportunity, and prosperity for all, which is much more about exclusive patent rights, though there are some areas of overlap with the realm of copy/trade. I think Lessig has a poor understanding of the stakes. It isn't about the media, it's about the industrial giants who own and chair the media, and the essence of their impact on the world is physical control over the energy produced and materials used by the whole of humanity. Copy/trade is merely a component of that global institution.
Lessig's political focus on "getting money out of campaigns" does not seem to build a credible "immovable object" to counter the infinitely deep pockets of capital's "irresistible force". I don't doubt his sincerity, and the Mayday project does seem to have a "phase 2" which isn't just an awkward silence before a chorus of "profit!" I just think he's expecting a battle against ratfucking when he should be concerned more about bearfucking. We'll see how it goes.
cowicide — 2014-06-09T16:13:40-04:00 — #19
It's not a direct reflection on the people.
Then why mention it? If you wish them well, I'm not sure associating this project with stupidity and corruption is the best way to go about it.
his focus on copyright and trademark in his law work misses the mark on market corruption
So his law work is a hindrance to the current project how?
Lessig's political focus on "getting money out of campaigns" does not seem to build a credible "immovable object" to counter the infinitely deep pockets of capital's "irresistible force"
I think that's a bit of a over-simplistic representation of the goals and somewhat hyperbolic.
Also, aside from your amorphous bearfucking, I'm not really seeing any alternative plan coming from you, nor any tangible constructive criticism. My question still stands, do you have a better idea and what is it?
I'm left wondering what the point of your posts are within this thread.
andy_hilmer — 2014-06-09T17:14:56-04:00 — #20
The real world is not a team sport, no matter how easy it is to chop it up so, so being skeptical isn't an expression of opposition. Even given the team-sport-ish nature of politics, the Mark McKinnon/insider wings of both the donkeys and goppers have become the loser wings of both parties. For the Ds in this group, they've been left behind by more explicitly populist and, frankly, competent tactics. For the Rs, they've been dogpiled by the idiots and cynical scam artists. It bodes ill for their chances on this collaboration, even if I'm happy to be proved wrong.
- To note that Lessig isn't going after the real power of political evil, merely the symptoms.
2., 3., etc. To respond to you. If I was concern trolling I'd be pestering others rather than being pestered by you.
next page →