Browse By

MayDay PAC Candidate Fails

The MayDay PAC, run by Lawrence Lessig, was established with the idea that it would support ethical reform in campaign finance, by providing enough funding to elect political candidates with integrity to the U.S. Congress. MayDay promised to promote “fundamental reform in the way elections are funded”, helping candidates who would take “small dollar contributions”.

mayday pac failureAs part of this agenda, the MayDay PAC supported Republican candidate Jim Rubens in his campaign to represent New Hampshire in the U.S. Senate. However, the MayDay PAC’s efforts in this regard have turned out to be a double failure.

Failure 1: Jim Rubens wasn’t really a reform candidate. The Rubens for Senate campaign was boosted by Super PACs backed by big-money donors with Washington D.C. insider connections, including a PAC from Virginia that masqueraded as a New Hampshire political organization.

Failure 2: The MayDay PAC was unable to provide sufficient support to enable Jim Rubens to achieve electoral success. Jim Rubens lost yesterday’s Republican Party U.S. Senate primary in New Hampshire, getting only 24 percent of the Republican vote, about half of the number of votes that the victor, Scott Brown, received.

Is it possible for small donations to overcome the corrupting influence of big money in politics? The MayDay PAC’s activities in New Hampshire this year don’t provide any evidence for it.

8 thoughts on “MayDay PAC Candidate Fails”

  1. Jim Cook says:

    But wait, there’s more, Peregrin! While in New Hampshire, Mayday PAC money was used for some very interesting expenditures. Stay tuned for an uncoming post on the topic.

    1. J Clifford says:

      The MayDay PAC is supporting an organization with a pro-gun agenda favored by the NRA! How is that about getting big money out of politics, Mr. Lessig?

  2. Bruce Nappi says:

    Peregrin, Keep open minded on this. One of the Mayday PAC’s stated strategies was to pump up low vote-getting GOP candidates to dilute the GOP vote. Brown may not register Democratic, but has been a 50 /50 voter, unlike the extremists of either party.

    1. Bill says:

      Guy who totally ignores abundant and ever-building evidence that Mayday is a clown car full of buffoons advancing tea party agendas encourages someone else to “keep an open mind.” Okaaaay.

      Mayday PAC: A fool and YOUR money….

  3. J Clifford says:

    Bruce, MAYDAY PAC is planning to support sure-to-lose candidates on purpose?!?

    Really?

    The MayDay PAC tells its donors that it has a four-point plan, and what you describe is not part of that plan.

    MayDay PAC is just like the other corrupt PACs… It’s learned to speak out of both sides of its mouth.

  4. Tom says:

    Politics, like business, like society, like civilization – is all based on lies, theft and greed. Our political system is corrupted beyond redemption. Democrats and Republicans are two sides of the same loaded coin – vote either way and you lose.

    1. J Clifford says:

      Wait a minute, Tom. Is ALL civilization based on theft? What about, for example, cinnamon rolls? Oh, wait… I see your point.

  5. Tom says:

    Here’s another example of the same crap from the other side:

    http://www.washingtonsblog.com/2014/09/corruption-emilys-list-hidden-liberals.html

    Corruption of ‘Emily’s List’ Is Hidden by Liberals

    A liberal website buried this huge scandal, by giving it the sleep-inducing headline “You Know Who Always Wins in Elections? Lobbyists, Consultants, NY’s Organized Politics.” Then, the anonymous Democratic-Party-activist-blogger, buried his real news yet deeper, by waiting till the middle of his second paragraph to introduce it, when he finally announced there the shocking allegation (with my interjections shown in brackets):

    “Although basically every Democratic woman candidate is petrified to speak publicly about EMILY’s List’s shenanigans [about which he had not yet said anything nor even mentioned], I’ve heard from candidate after candidate the same exact details [what ‘details’?] for years. For example [Oh, there are others? He mentions none. This, which is to come, is his actual news story in his article:], when EMILY’s List ‘suggests’ that the candidates [whom] they raise money for hire The New Media, Inc., not everyone is aware that that firm’s president, Tierney Hunt is the wife of EMILY’s List Campaigns Director Jonathan Parker. The money EMILY’s List demands cannot be spent on something useful — like a field operation — but must be wasted on a lame Beltway firm [that] is going to personally enrich an EMILY’s List executive. It’s how EMILY’s List killed the campaigns this year of Alex Sink, Wendy Greuel and Eloise Reyes. Several despairing candidates have said to me that they are forced to sit on the phone all day begging for money and that all the money winds up in the pockets of utterly worthless consultants they are forced to hire. And then they lose.”

    This blogger’s blogging had started in 2000 and has been filled since then with anecdotes from Democratic campaigns in which he has been active, but the Democratic candidates who are being ripped off by these “consultants” are evidently protected not only by such bloggers as this, but by anonymous Democratic Party higher-ups, who, presumably, benefit by assisting operations such as Emily’s List to, basically, rob donors who think that the money they’re donating will go to the campaign-needs of the nominal candidate.

    Who benefits from this robbing of liberals? Who benefits from outfits such as Emily’s List is here described as being?

    Well, of course, Republican candidates do. And, so: why are Democratic candidates keeping this theft secret?

    According to the blogger, these are “consultants they are forced to hire.”

    The blogger isn’t saying precisely who is “forcing” this. And he is not saying why he is burying this sensational news, instead of leading with it and headlining it, something like, “Corruption of ‘Emily’s List’ Is Hidden by Liberals.”

    If such people as this are to be called ‘liberals,’ then what actually separates them significantly from ‘conservatives’?

    If the Democratic Party is so corrupt – enough to hide instead of boldly to expose people who are basically robbing liberal donors — then how is it supposed to be importantly different from the overtly conservative Party, which unabashedly endorses corruption? (That link is to the actual vote in the U.S. Senate, on September 11th, regarding a bill to amend the U.S. Constitution to reverse the U.S. Supreme Court’s, bare 5-Republican to 4-Democrat, Citizens United, decision, which has allowed corporate CEOs unlimitedly to loot their stockholders’ funds to finance political campaigns of the candidates who will do these executives the biggest personal favors. 100% of the Senate votes for such a Constitutional amendment came from all of the Democratic Senators, and the two Independents, while 100% of the votes against it came only from Republicans — and there were enough of them to kill this bill.)

    Conservatives control the money flowing to the candidates in “both” Parties, even though virtually all Democratic politicians (except the ones at the very top, such as the Clintons and Obama) want to end that corruption.

    Guess, then, which candidates’ campaigns are getting robbed blind? Obviously, it’s the most progressive ones, all of whom are Democrats and independents.

    This is ‘democracy’? It’s actually a rigged game, for corruption in both Parties. Not enough honest politicians can beat it, for the corrupt system itself to be ended. It’s a game that is rigged for corruption, and against democracy.

Leave a Reply

Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *

Psst... what kind of person doesn't support pacifism?

Fight the Republican beast!