Lawrence Lessig - The MaydayPAC lyrics

Over the past two decades, there have been many who have seen a perfect storm for America's democracy brewing. As the political parties have become more competitive, the leaders of both parties have directed our representatives to make fundraising their first priority. And as the court has effectively removed the limits to campaign funding, candidates for Congress have turned more and more to an ever shrinking number of the super-rich. SuperPACs are just the latest in this trend. But they are certainly the most toxic. For as they learn to effectively coordinate campaigns without technically coordinating, they become the critical complement to any effective political campaign. Candidates learn to dance to a**ure the right kind of funding gets directed to the right kind of SuperPACs. That dance is for the princes, not for the people. The election of 2016 will only accelerate this trend. Already, both parties have begun to deploy SuperPACs on their own sides. If nothing is done to change this system, we can expect it will survive for a long time. If we cannot build a movement to resist the SuperPAC model of funding elections, then both parties will settle into the new reality of American politics. Both parties will continue to work to make themselves attractive to the super rich on their own side. They will tell themselves this compromise is necessary. “How else can we get [insert your favorite reform: health care reform/tax reform/climate change legislation/control on spending] if we're not in power?” So the pursuit of power will push both parties to come to terms with this corruption. This reality has pushed some of us to begin thinking about just how we could create the pressure for politicians to face up to this crisis. What could we do to elevate an issue that Americans care about, but that politicians are too embarra**ed to even discuss? What could we do to create a movement that might win enough seats in 2016 to make fundamental reform possible? The answer is both ironic and obvious: a SuperPAC to end all SuperPACS. Or more precisely, to change the way we fund elections, both directly and through SuperPACs, we needed a SuperPAC. We need, in other words, a powerful political engine to build the support that this movement will require. And we need one quickly. So about a year ago, with a grant from two very different funders (one a libertarian, the other a liberal democrat), we commissioned a study about how much it would cost to win a Congress in 2016 committed to fundamental reform. The answer we got was a very big number - but the most important recommendation we got was that we must fight this battle in two election cycles, 2014 and 2016. And that in 2014, we target a small number of races where we could first learn what it would take to win, and second, by winning, convince others to take this campaign seriously. The cost for that 2014 campaign was relatively small - just $12 million. In April, I announced a plan to raise that money on Kickstarter. We would kickstart half of it in two stages - first by raising $1 million in thirty days, and if we met that goal, kickstart $5 million in thirty days. Each of those targets I said I'd find a match for, so that by the end of June, we'd have the $12 million for the 2014 campaigns. We launched the first campaign on May 1 - aka, “May Day,” which evokes the distress call, “MAYDAY,” and provides the name of our SuperPAC: MaydayPAC. In thirteen days, we had raised our $1 million, with 13,000 contributors giving an average of $87 per contribution. In June, we will launch the second round. And if we're successful in that, and in the matches, we will recruit the best campaign shops we can to win in at least five races in 2014. We'll build the momentum we need for a much bigger SuperPAC in 2016. There's an obvious irony in using big money to beat big money. I get that. But this is the nation of Colbert. We can embrace the irony, if it gets us our democracy back. Others are not sure. Some worry that there's something improper about using a corrupted system to achieve corruption reform. Don't we dirty our hands if we use the money of the few to achieve a democracy for the many? I understand that concern. I don't agree with it. One might have said it was wrong to use the racist system of American democracy to bring about the rights of citizenship for African-Americans. I wouldn't have said that. Or one might have said it was wrong to use a s**ist political system to bring about a democracy in which women have the right to vote. I wouldn't have said that either. In my view, we work with the democracy we have to make a more perfect democracy. And the only way we'll convince America that winning is possible is if we show America we've got the resources to win. Finally, some worry that any system that depends upon the rich at all - which our MaydayPAC certainly will - will become compromised by those rich. Why isn't their influence here just as corrupting as their influence is on our democracy? Yet there's an important distinction that we should keep clear. The rich who support the MaydayPAC are spending their money to reduce their influence. If we're successful, they will be less powerful. And while I'm the first to look for an ulterior motive in what anyone close to government does, I am inspired that those with the power step up to lead us to a democracy where they have less. “Why would they do it?” you might be tempted to ask. What's in it for them? What indeed? It is striking, and a bit depressing, that this is such an obvious yet difficult question. Because of course, our society is filled with people who make personal sacrifices to make the rest of us better off. Think of the fireman who chooses to enter the burning building. Or the police officer who intervenes to stop a shooting. Or the teacher who could have been a lawyer. Or the doctor who chooses to work in a neighborhood with special needs. Or think especially of the soldier. In every war in the history of the United States, there have been soldiers who have volunteered to serve. That choice is a sacrifice, because in choosing to serve, these soldiers risk an ultimate sacrifice - their “last full measure of devotion.” But they do so because they believe they are serving their country. They risk their lives “to make America safe for democracy.” Sometimes it is difficult to see the link between the risk and the democratic reward. Think of the war in Vietnam or Iraq: No doubt, soldiers serving in those wars risked making the ultimate sacrifice. But how their sacrifice would strengthen our democracy is not clear, at least to many. The sacrifice of the rich who support the MaydayPAC is tiny as compared to soldiers serving in an active war. For the sacrifice is only money, and in every case, there will be plenty left. But the link between that sacrifice and our democracy is at least clearer. Our Republic has been crippled by a system in which the very few have enormous influence over elected officials. We can only restore that Republic if we can change the system that gives the rich that enormous influence. A billionaire who spends his or her money to reduce her own influence is giving us, the People, something enormously valuable: our democracy back. It's not that we need to be grateful for that gift. But I do believe we should respect it. We need them to make this reform possible. They need us to understand its effect, even if we can never be certain of its motive: They will have less, so we can have more.