MAY ONE: A SuperPAC for the rest of us!

[Cheetah]

https://mayone.us/

the Idea

Government has failed us. More than 90% of Americans link that failure to the influence of money in politics.

Yet the politicians ignore this influence. While America founders, they spend endless time with their funders.

These funders hold our democracy hostage. We want to pay the ransom, and get it back.

We're going to kickstart a SuperPAC big enough to make it possible to win a Congress committed to fundamental reform by 2016.

Or at least we're going to try.

So far it looks like it will be very possible to get enough money. I see 150k already for the first day!

This can get interesting fast!

 

[Core Imposter]

That's a proof for the commonality of stupidity.

 

[SS-18 ICBM]

We want to pay the ransom, and get it back.

I'm sure this won't encourage more of that behaviour.

 

[Kozmos]

You would get somewhere faster by withdrawing all the money and burning it.

 

[Antilogic]

Seems like the Wolf-PAC idea is growing.

 

[gay_Aleks]

You might as well start printing out 1 trillion dollar bills with Marx's face on them or something.

 

[Cheetah]

So they're up to over $300,000 now, and I've seen that several news media have reported on it.

Yet there doesn't seem to be any interest for this at CFC...

Am I missing something?

 

[Kozmos]

So they're up to over $300,000 now, and I've seen that several news media have reported on it.

Yet there doesn't seem to be any interest for this at CFC...

Am I missing something?

The idea is as they describe themselves a moonshot. Except there is no moon. Working within the system only legitimized it further and against the combined money and influence of both parties, assorted corporations and private media? Not a chance.

 

[Gucumatz]

Probably most of us are thinking "So what...?". Its a nice little publicity stunt, but its not going to change anything

 

[BenitoChavez]

This sounds suspiciously like The Human Fund. "Money for people".

 

[Luckymoose]

Probably most of us are thinking "So what...?". Its a nice little publicity stunt, but its not going to change anything

Unless they use the money to build a revolutionary militia.

 

[Gucumatz]

Because a Junta would solve money in politics

 

[Kozmos]

Because a Junta would solve money in politics

A restart would be better than losing Net Neutrality and a host of other BS that is passed.

 

[gay_Aleks]

because juntas are known for supporting the love of liberty in the land

 

[Traitorfish]

Seems like you'd be better off joining a trade union or community group, start with something tangible and work on changing things from there. This belief that the system is fundamentally sound, that all you really need is a change in leadership, it just seems hopelessly naive to me.

 

[kramerfan86]

Another superPAC is news because?

 

[CavLancer]

These are politicians you're trying to buy? You expect them to stay bought? You want to buy their representation?

They'll take the bait and spit out the hook.

 

[Antilogic]

Am I missing something?

The idea is as they describe themselves a moonshot. Except there is no moon. Working within the system only legitimized it further and against the combined money and influence of both parties, assorted corporations and private media? Not a chance.

I think they are using a less effective strategy than Wolf PAC, for what it's worth. Going against the big corporate money in Congress is a Herculean task, and the fact they are setting up their PAC to allow donors to target only Republican or Democratic politicians is a bit unusual (although if they get enough money in, who knows?). It doesn't seem like they have a gameplan beyond "collect money" "???" "no money in politics!"

Compare that to Wolf PAC's strategy to apply pressure at state-level offices, where both shoe-leather campaigns can still be very effective at turfing out elected officials and the lower level politicians aren't necessarily corrupted by the big machines yet. They have specific bills they have introduced in several states* calling for an Article V-style constitutional amendment on campaign finance and money in politics. If enough of these get passed, it's convention time like 1789!**



*passed in Vermont, awaiting votes in California, Massachusetts, and Illinois, awaiting introduction in several other states.

**Okay, 1787, but that doesn't rhyme as well.

 

[peter grimes]

Seems like you'd be better off joining a trade union or community group, start with something tangible and work on changing things from there. This belief that the system is fundamentally sound, that all you really need is a change in leadership, it just seems hopelessly naive to me.

It's not at all easy to join a trade Union in the USA. I don't know how it goes elsewhere, but here there's a high barrier to entry in time worked and (usually?) entrance fee.

In any case, my local - International Association of Theatrical Stage Employees (I.A.T.S.E) local One (yes, it's spelled out ) - has a PAC. meaning political action committee.

Every member is welcome at the meetings, the executive board chooses the funding levels but that has to be approved by the voting membership.

I've never been to a meeting, but the details are updated on the website I log in at. They really only deal with local stuff, up to the state level. A little token is thrown to our national reps, but dollar-wise it's essentially a local PAC

 

[JollyRoger]

So they're up to over $300,000 now, and I've seen that several news media have reported on it.

Yet there doesn't seem to be any interest for this at CFC...

Am I missing something?

Yeah . . . you should be using "only" instead of "over".