Hacker News Reader

Comment by wheels | Hacker News Reader

You might get more schadenfreude that way, but it'd be much more effective to spend that money on lobbyists and organization that worked on changing the law.

View on HN

but it'd be much more effective to spend that money on lobbyists

Maybe, maybe not.

Lobbying is very expensive, I suspect some times it would be cheaper to lobby, other times it would be cheaper to sabotage the system.

Which is cheaper could depend on many things, like is anyone lobbying against you, vs. is the system designed in such a way that it could potentially adjust itself to defends itself or not.

You'd be surprised at how cheap it is to buy a legislator in most cases.

Let's suppose that it is easy to buy a legislator. The problem here is that there's also lots of money being used to sway legislators towards increased security, so you'll be in a bidding war.

Care to elaborate on a few such cases?

Look at how much Hollywood paid to Lamar Smith for SOPA:

http://www.opensecrets.org/politicians/industries.php?cycle=...

It looks like the going rate for a Congressman who is a powerful committee chair is around $100K.

A rank-and-file Congressman can usually be had for $10K or so.

It can be insanely profitable. NPR on how some lobbying efforts yield returns of 22,000 percent:

http://www.npr.org/blogs/money/2012/01/06/144737864/forget-s...

I wonder how effective something like Kick Starter would be if it was applied to lobbyists? I mean, at some point it was supposed to be that whoever got elected represented the people. But now it is obvious that the elected just represent who ever gave them the largest amount of money. Could crowd Funding compete with big Co. and wealthy individuals?

Yes, the idealist in me wants to believe the system can be changed. But I am getting close to 30 and I haven't bought any new Bad Religion CD/MP3 since I was 22 to fuel the idealist in me.

At best, that would start a bidding war.

But realistically, politicians want the largest amount of money over time - crowdsourcing couldn't affors to pay off a politician every year. Not to mention, they'd likely just ignore the crowd sourced payoffs - there's money, and then there's money + power.

Are you sure? What if the crowdsourced money is divided up front, and payed to the politician in yearly chunks, maybe with an appointed trustee able to cancel the payments? Not sure what you mean by money + power.

What about non-profit organizations with charters to change legislation? Instead of raising funds to lobby, you raise funds to form an endowment. The proceeds from the endowment are used for lobbying until such time as the legislative goal is achieved.

One the goal is achieved the funds can be distributed to another cause, redirected towards another goal, or kept as is with the goal and preventing future legislation from erasing the gains.

Instead of contributing to one politician perhaps we should be contributing to an army of lobbying pools that match our desired policy outcomes?

Reply on news.ycombinator.com