You realize that police don't think that, right? And other than those attorneys working for Dept of Justice and other agencies with a law enforcement mandate, I don't think many attorneys consider themselves "law enforcement" either.
The local ambulance chaser or deed auditor hardly goes around calling himself "law enforcement".
It doesn't matter what someone calls themselves when asking what they have experience in.
A deed auditor would tend to think that they have had some experience in the enforcing of the area of law pertaining to deed auditing without ever needing to title themselves as law enforcement.
Police are the problem, what they think is besides the point, they've invalidated their voice and are now the subject of the conversation about what to do about them.
I appreciate what Alexis is trying to do here but I hope he isn't assuming that the FCC just doesn't understand the problem. That's how this reads to me. Maybe the idea is to be diplomatic. I don't think the FCC cares. The FCC understands what is going on and it wants to do whatever is best for the FCC.
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.
That's the essence of contemporary lobbying. Most legislators can be persuaded with campaign contributions (the carrot) but those that can't get threatened with the stick, which comes in the form of a previously unheard of but suddenly flush primary opponent.
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.
I recognize the irony. The reason it's ironic is because it's doomed to fail. You cannot raise money in order to lessen the influence of money. If this campaign does anything, it will simply invite opposing groups to raise more money in order to elect anti-campaign finance reform candidates.
What's important isn't a success or failure (in Lessig's "trial" election cycle or in 2016). I think his point is: people care enough about campaign finance reform to help raise $5m in a month.
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.
I'm not sure which martial art is about turning the force of your opponent's moves against them, but this seems like a prime example. Rest assured, Lessig is acutely aware that what he's doing comes down to a hack. That shouldn't be a tough sell here.
Eric Cantor proved that you can't buy an election with money. Ideas ultimately are what count in an election, and to the extent that any good ideas are removed from the public realm with this scheme, we all lose. The last thing we want is the government regulating money spent on political speech - the corruption potential is absolutely enormous - hence the First Amendment.
>Eric Cantor proved that you can't buy an election with money.
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.
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.
No one gets voted on by the public unless they've bought themselves into the vote in the first place. The public just gets to vote between the few dozen people that can raise enough money to get there.
That people think it works enough to pay money for it isn't proof that it does. I dub this the 'Ion Bracelet Effect' (though there's probably a better name for it already).
"'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]
No, but it's not hard to provide actual mechanisms to explain how money influences politics.
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.
OpenSecrets.org hosts a long-running effort to correlate the rate at which legislators favor or oppose particular industries with the size of the contributions they receive. Turns out, they track very closely. Like, to the point where reasonable people stop thinking "correlation" and start thinking "causation."
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.
That's actually correct - it requires a gargantuan amount to "buy" an election (double the spending for 1% more of the vote, or something along those lines).
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.
"they'll gain a lot of brownie points (e.g. a promotion)"
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.
Which is possibly (probably?) correct in this case, and many other issues we as tech people care about. But that doesn't dispute the facts in his post; it's merely a tangential thing.
For example, most regular voters care about copyright extensions, but the lobbyists do, and so it gets extended time after time.
> Which is possibly (probably?) correct in this case, and many other issues we as tech people care about.
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.
I'm always curious as to why people think politicians are more motivated by reelection prospects that, say, their legacy or actually representing their personal views or convictions. I mean, I can understand why the ones that make it into office are the ones that fight hard to get elected in the first place, but once they are there, why wouldn't you expect a lot of them to take pride in actually representing their districts and really doing a good job in a representative democracy? I've always wondered why reelection is more important to these people supposedly then every other incentive! Can someone elaborate as to why this assumption is always made?
Some do. But consider some simple mechanics of it:
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.
If doing the job IS wasting time, that means the incentives are all wrong. But still, who says that re-election is the goal? What about the places where they are limited to only 2 terms? How could re election explain ther second term actions? Or are people going to claim that at that point they're all captured by te industry using the revolving door?
I think it's simply self-preservation. If they don't get reelected, they lose their job. Few people want that. Would you lose your job over your views on issues like gun control? May you would, but a lot (maybe majority) of people wouldn't. Look at the stories of people in former communist countries. Majority of them didn't want to even risk their jobs over much, much more serious issues than gun control, NSA, or abortion.
Bureaucrats don't want to lose ther jobs. But for elected politicians the job is to do what they said for a specified term. If doing their job properly means losing it, then maybe the incentives are all wrong. We already have term limits for presidents, what about senators and congresspeople?
Think of it this way: Suppose there exists a politician that cares deeply about N issues. She knows she can only do what's right on M out of those N due to various constraints. She is going to pick those M issues that are most important to her. She will fight tooth and nail to get reelected so that she can complete her work on those M issues. This is exactly what politicians should be doing, no?
Interesting point. I haven't thought about it that way. But do you think that's the explanation for all the activities where they flipflop on the other N-M issues?
Yes, partially, it is. If, as a politician, you deeply care about a specific issue that you think is most important, then you should be willing to do whatever it takes on all the other ones to get it done.
In that case, wouldn't it be nice to have a website that identifies every politician's main focus? Based on their votes and maybe with interviews on that page supporting it?
Such a website would be very useful to society, and can be done on city and state levels all around the world.
Also, being a congressman is VERY prestigious. Just having the job and all the perks that come with it(money, status, security, influence, etc) is very desirable.
I guess to me prestige is secondary to actually doing the job. After all with the congressman's connections he or she can continue to have an impact afterwards. Look at retired US presidents and vice presidents who want to continue to make a difference! Sometimes it's even easier and more pleasant for them once they're out of office.
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.
Actually I didn't. The mechanics of congressional corruption have been a long running interest of mine. But I think Ira Glass is great and if what I'm saying here is the essence of what he's saying too, that's a welcome development.
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.
Starting conversations with the assumption that the person on the other end of the conversation is acting in bad faith will gain you nothing. If they are going to act in bad faith anyway, what you say doesn't matter.
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.
I just had a read over the letter and the first 2-3 paragraphs talked about nothing other than what's in it for YC (and similar companies) that are worth "billions of dollars". I'll be honest - I cringed when the focal statement of the letter started "We need the FCC" - as opposed to perhaps what could have been expressed as "In order for the FCC to meet its objectives of XYZ, we are asking that they consider ABC".
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.
> 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.
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.
It makes sense. If I say this proposal hurts companies like ACME Tech. Then they should just be looking for ACME Tech's comments.
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.
See Grover Norquist. He approached congressional members of both parties with a pledge to never raise taxes. If a member refused to sign or signed and violated the pledge, his group would go into the local elections in that person's constituency and heavily fund their opponents.
If you aren't familiar with this, you might be surprised to see who signed it.
The FCC has specifically asked people to comment on their proposal. Either they do care, or they're staging some very bizarre and pointless PR stunt because it really doesn't matter if anyone likes them or not.
The vibe I've been getting from Tom Wheeler is that he would probably personally prefer reclassifying ISPs as common carriers, but there's a ton of powerful forces leaning on him not to, and his half-assed proposal is the best he could get. But if he could point to an "anti-SOPA-like" grassroots movement and go "There's a ton of bad PR if you mess with these people, we better give them what they want", he might be allowed to reclassify after all. Though I'll be the first to admit, the sudden disappearance of half a million comments from the FCC site doesn't really corroborate this theory...
> The best thing for tech companies to do is to start destroying some political careers.
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.
Wow, that's an absolutely terrible idea. I don't think Google would ever do that, if simply because the risk of it getting out is too great, it would absolutely destroy the trust of the brand.
But, interestingly, there is nothing stopping us doing it ... I think it is still possible to game google results such that the top results for any politicians name includes "sex scandal of senator X" simply by a lot of people linking to it.
It's democratic (if you are happy for Russian links to count in your senators feeds)
