I am a big fan of Lessig and his work and I agree with what he is trying to do but I think this is a terrible idea. The best that could come out of it is if he uses the presidential debates as his pulpit and bows out. Even then he will have spent a lot of money and done damage to his cause by hurting his own credibility and MayDay.us PAC's credibility. If he goes any further, he will also hurt the primary chances for Bernie Sanders, whom Lessig all but endorses in his post. Even if he were somehow to win, he would not have the power as president to do what he wants to do. He had the right approach with MayDay.us to swing the congress, and he should stick with it.

And that was exactly their takeaway:

Lessig has been very clear that most of what they were trying to do for 2014 was to learn if and how to move votes on this issue. Don't think they are missing these lessons.

And that was exactly their takeaway:

Lessig has made it very clear that most of what they were trying to do in 2014 was to figure out if and how to swing elections on this issue. Don't think they are missing these lessons.

Where do you get that idea? As far as I know, this is only true in so far as some limits on direct individual contributions have so far survived.

Actually, that can be expensive too. It's legal to pay people to collect signatures for a petition, for example. The SCOTUS has knocked down attempts to ban this, so don't expect that everyone "pounding the pavement" is a volunteer.

Actually, this has been exactly Lessig's point. He is quick to point out that the problem with campaign finance isn't so much the corruption of the voters through advertising, but the corruption of the politicians through constant begging rich people for money.

I don't entirely agree; I think the millions going into advertising to misinform the voters are a huge part of the problem, but it's worth listening to Lessig's point, which agrees with yours. Much of the "fundamental reform" he is demanding is targeting the issue of how politicians raise money and the effect of that process on their decision making.

Are you being dense or intentionally deceptive?

Of course it's an issue. It is THE issue. Yes each of us should make our own decisions on how to vote. But the money IS corrupting the decision making of a large portion of the voters and of all the politicians.

Here's a plan. Here's another plan. Here's another plan.

You joke, but I think this is a serious question. NSLs and associated gag orders are clearly totalitarian and wrong. The Citizen's United decision is wrong -- corporate entities do not have rights. However -- if we assume that corporations do not have first amendment rights, are NSL gag orders unconstitutional or illegal?

One way I can see it is that it is constitutional for the government to prohibit e.g. Twitter from publishing these reports, and Twitter can then do their responsibility under the law in telling their employees not to publish the data (like any corporate NDA). Then if an employee does leak it, it is a breach of contract between them and Twitter, but it would be unconstitutional for the government to go after the employee for violating the gag order. As far as the government is concerned, the entity known as "Twitter" leaked the data and violated the gag order. The government can go after Twitter, but for what, fines? In this case "piercing the corporate veil" would be a violation of the first amendment. (Incidentally, what are the penalties for violating these gag orders?)

On the one hand, I applaud corporations standing up to this abuse. However, I think winning this case based on the false premise of Corporate Free Speech would be a very dangerous precedent and entrenching of Citizen's United-style logic.

I've seen people try to refute this straw man a lot lately. I don't think anyone is saying there is literally no difference between the two parties. What I mean when I say something like "the Democrats and Republicans are the same" is that they are either the same on issues I consider important (like the GP's "support the government's right to kill anyone, anywhere, for any reason without due process") or not sufficiently different on issues I consider important (climate change, taxes). Of course they differ significantly or insignificantly or just-for-show on some other issues, but that does not negate the fact that they are the same when it comes to the issue under discussion. You may be choosing one of these two parties because you want to vote, for example, for or against abortion, but that does mean that you are also voting for indefinite war and other awful policies with either choice. It also implies that the differentiating issue is more important to you than the non-differentiating ones.

Everything you just listed, except the "single breadwinner", IS "keeping up with the Joneses."

link?

Correction: Massachusetts legalized medical marijuana. Washington and Colorado legalized marijuana for recreational use.

Pick one. How do we get it done?

5% would be nice. Even being liberal, I really hoped for it and expected it. But Johnson only got 1% of the vote. Where were all the libertarians yesterday?