| I really like that Lessig is doing this because it is a concrete test of his assertion that money distorts politics. 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.