Enter your email address to subscribe to Irregular Times and receive notifications of new posts by email.

Join 249 other subscribers

Irregular Times Newsletters

Click here to subscribe to any or all of our six topical e-mail newsletters:
  1. Social Movement Actions,
  2. Credulity and Faith,
  3. Election News,
  4. This Week in Congress,
  5. Tech Dispatch and
  6. our latest Political Stickers and Such

Contact Us

We can be contacted via retorts@irregulartimes.com

Mayday PAC Answers Questions with Call to Faith and Declaration of Independence

A few days ago, I sent some questions to Mayday PAC, an outfit that says it will spend large amounts of money on American elections this year in order to stop the influence of large amounts of money in American elections.  These questions are:

Question 1: What are the Guarantees that Mayday PAC will Actually Do What it Says it Will Do? The mayday.us website features a frequently asked questions page and a general, informal essay about the PAC’s plan. But there are no firm commitments. No adopted bylaws. No document explaining exactly who is making decisions and how. This is from an organization that’s asking you to surrender $500, $1000, or $2500 of your own money to be used at its discretion. Is that appropriate without verification?

Question 2: Do Big Money Donors get a Big Say in Mayday PAC Campaign Spending? One way to think of the “matching funds” idea behind Mayday PAC is that a very small number of people are funding half the Mayday PAC operation — a very small group with very unusual financial interests. Did these big money matching donors secure any agreements from Mayday PAC as a condition of their participation? Do the big money donors obtain unusual access to Mayday PAC leadership? Do they play a formal or informal role in making decisions about how Mayday PAC spends its money?

Question 3: How Will Mayday PAC Choose the 5 Recipients of its Spending? As its own FAQ concedes, there are many more candidates than just five who support campaign finance reform. How do donors know that their money won’t be used for big spending on behalf of candidates who say they like campaign finance reform … and an end to environmental regulation? Or who like campaign finance reform … and tax breaks for multinational corporations? The Mayday PAC declares that when sorting out possible candidates to support, its leaders will avoid extremists “by selecting people who otherwise seem trustworthy and reliable.” But who decides what’s “trustworthy and reliable?” There is no clearly articulated standard by which this highly subjective decision will be made — and there should be.

Last night, Rachel Perkins of the Mayday PAC wrote back to me with a response:

“Hi Jim,

“Sorry it took me a while to get to your email, but I wanted to spend a little time answering it.

“There is, frankly, nothing *guaranteeing* that MayDay PAC will spend the money as we have committed to. We said we will use the money to get people elected based on the issue of campaign finance reform. That is our intention. This is something that folks are willing to take on faith, and I am personally super grateful for that. Any guarantee we could offer beyond our own word would be worthless, in my opinion.

“The one and only issue we are interested in is campaign finance reform. It is why our ‘big money’ matchers have chosen to match the donations of our supporters. They don’t have another agenda, or they would have spent that money elsewhere. They are not going to be involved in the selection of races we get involved in, nor are they going to direct our activities.

“In the coming weeks, we will be announcing the matchers for the $5M as well as plans for spending the money in the upcoming 2014 elections–our top priority.

“It’s important to us that we be as transparent as possible. To this end, we’ll be posting this information and ongoing communication from Prof. Lessig on the new MayDay.US blog:
https://mayday.us/blog/

“If you’re on our mailing list, you will also receive this information by email.

“Thanks for being with us,

-rachel

rachel perkins
MAYDAY.US”

I am grateful to Mayday.us for writing back promptly and sincerely.  That choice reflects a key difference from the political group its leaders were previously involved in, Americans Elect, which referred to itself as democratic but repeatedly refused to answer simple questions.

I don’t appreciate the suggestion that Americans hand over money to political operations and “take on faith” that they’ll spend the money with honor. The transparency movement is all about opening up the decision-making process so that everyday citizens can follow the activities of leaders and check leaders’ promises against hard data indications of what they do. On this point of obscurity, the Mayday PAC still bears watcing.

On the other hand, the declaration that the big money “matching” contributors to Mayday.us “are not going to be involved in the selection of races we get involved in, nor are they going to direct our activities” is a straightforward and reassuring promise that is

The next steps will be:

1) to note the identity of the $5 million “matching” big money donors and the $1 million “matchers” before them.

2) to pay attention to the candidates the Mayday PAC actually favors its spending. Will the favored candidates remain within a narrow range of general political ideology (for example, adopting pro-business “centrism”), or will they be truly ideologically diverse? Will the favored candidates show support for specific policies that would benefit the big-money contributors to the Mayday PAC, or will the supported candidates adopt some positions opposing the interests of big-money contributors?

The proof of Mayday PAC’s integrity will be at the second step, and we’ll have to wait for that. In the meantime, however, it is encouraging that Mayday PAC staff are both communicative and willing to commit the organization to a wall between money coming in and choices coming out.

3 comments to Mayday PAC Answers Questions with Call to Faith and Declaration of Independence

  • Bill

    I think that your characterization of Mayday’s “wall between money coming in and choices coming out” is overly rosy.

    Say that, for the moment, we take Lessig on Mayday’s word that its big-money matching donors “are not going to be involved in the selection of races we get involved in, nor are they going to direct our activities.” I’m willing to give them the benefit of the doubt on this, at least until more data are in. But that statement is not to say that Mayday’s internal decisions regarding which candidates to target won’t, consciously or unconsciously, be colored by their own concerns regarding how their decisions will be received by those big-money donors. I think it is almost always disingenuous to suppose that the cardinal rule of human economy, “He who pays the money calls the tune,” has somehow been suspended by the power of good intentions.

    Not to put words in Lessig’s mouth, but I suspect that he would answer this concern with some rosy notions regarding Mayday being ‘grassroots’ and ‘crowdfunded,’ and therefore immune to considerations regarding big-money donors’ interests. But Mayday’s recently-concluded $6M fund drive demonstrated that the organization still views big-money donors as their sine qua non…otherwise they would have foregone big-money donations from the beginning. And wherever millionaires and billionaires financial contributions are viewed as essential, so too their interests and concerns will be attended to.

    Mayday has made it clear that interference in five House races this year is only its beginning…it has expressed its intentions to grow dramatically from there are and interfere in many, many races in 2016. In order to achieve that kind of growth, it will almost certainly have to keep its big-money donors smiling. It won’t do that by opposing too many candidates those donors oppose on personal-interest grounds, nor by supporting candidates whose positions make those donors feel threatened.

    I don’t doubt that Lessig’s heart is in the right place…sort-of, I guess. But he has long shown an extreme over-eagerness to sincerely believe that human nature can be suspended by the sheer force of good intentions, and seems to see such omnipotent good intentions in everyone he likes. In short, Lessig has more than once demonstrated that he’s a chump, not to put too fine a point on it.

    What I want to know is, what internal processes will Mayday implement and strictly adhere to in order to avoid being chumped (thus allowing its small-money grassroots donors to be chumped, as well)?

    • Bill

      Oops. Bit of a typo above. I meant to say:

      …it will almost certainly have to keep its big-money donors smiling. It won’t do that by opposing too many candidates those donors support on personal-interest grounds, nor by supporting candidates whose positions make those donors feel threatened.

      But you knew that.

  • Jim

    The way I’d express what you have written, Bill, is that the message is heartening but the group still needs to be watched. Is that fair? Or did I put too rosy a shine on your thoughts?

Leave a Reply

  

  

  

You can use these HTML tags

<a href="" title=""> <abbr title=""> <acronym title=""> <b> <blockquote cite=""> <cite> <code> <del datetime=""> <em> <i> <q cite=""> <strike> <strong>