A decent idea, but the anecdotal evidence of success seems like feel-good fluff, and not actually relevant.
CounterPAC seems like it's trying to create a spending arms race, but with the basis in simple disclosure, rather than political views. However, that the corporations have vastly higher resources and incentives to spend. Unfortunately, it seems trivial for firms to create a Counter-CounterPAC with the aim at depleting the resources of any successful PAC with these intentions.
From my perspective, this is a long run failing strategy, but has the possibly to succeed in the short run. It would need to hit the reps, and hit hard. Then immediately (within a few election cycles) turn and pass strong disclosure laws to create a change in the way the game works.
Wait, is it irrelevant fluff? Or will it work in the short term?
You say "the corporations" as if it's some secret cabal. Most spending is done by trade associations, not corporations directly. Trade associations like to get their legislation through. But they don't run the show.
Money only matters to the extent that it buys ads that move voters. And there's only a limited amount that matters in an election. If you take a house race and outspend your opponent $10 Billion to $1 Billion, but have a worse message, you will lose.
The total cost of the all federal elections in 2012, including the presidential, was around $8 billion dollars. That's a big number. It's almost a billion dollars more than the worldwide market for adult diapers:
> Money only matters to the extent that it buys ads that move voters. And there's only a limited amount that matters in an election. If you take a house race and outspend your opponent $10 Billion to $1 Billion, but have a worse message, you will lose.
I found this dubious, so I went googling. I felt I ought to share what I found:
Thanks - my point is actually narrower. It's that if both sides have enough money to saturate the voters with their message, additional money is of low marginal utility. Otherwise we'd have Meg Whitman as our governor in CA. She outspent Jerry Brown by nearly 5x in 2010, and lost by 13 points.
Right, so i said the idea was decent, but the anecdotal evidence of long term effectiveness as an overall strategy, with n=1, was irrelevant.
I only say "the corporations" as those entities who attempt to participate in the gift economy laid out in Lessig's "Republic Lost." I do not think a meta trade group reminiscent of ALEC or the Chamber of Commerce would be very unlikely if there was evidence that this strategy was effective.
While i agree with your point about swaying voters, as well as what i've read about Levitt's work on the subject, with the assent of self-selective media, Fox News and other various media outlets of questionable independence, it seems that there is much influence in coordinating talking points than there is in ads alone. Maybe i'm a bit paranoid about that, but with the deterioration of a diversity of media firms, i really don't think so.
The issue about billions of good money available amounts seems to lack the reason there is so much spending. The opportunity cost of a coal firm fighting potential crippling regulations would be essentially zero. If they stand to loose significantly in certain elections, then they can clearly spend exactly an equal amount to stop it.
On the side of good, there are no hard and fast numbers to budget, thus an coordination problem arises on who ought to spend what.
Like i said before though, i think lack of knowledge of the effectiveness of such an organization is it's greatest asset. If politicians are suddenly hit with a big stick, they may be out for the count. If they know what they are up against, they can probably raise money to counter-counter accordingly.
I think one possible way of fixing that counter-counter-PAC problem is this: Instead of focusing on the politicians themselves, trying to convince them to only accept money from disclosed sources, one could focus on convincing the existing corporations/PACs to only donate to politicians that disclose all their sources. That way you end up getting the politicians on board, and you're not at an arms race with anyone. Instead you're using the money from whoever you manage to get on your side to your cause's favor.
It's really about informing the public, so a counter-counter-PAC may not have an equivalent response. Of course we're getting into information-wars territory.
CounterPAC seems like it's trying to create a spending arms race, but with the basis in simple disclosure, rather than political views. However, that the corporations have vastly higher resources and incentives to spend. Unfortunately, it seems trivial for firms to create a Counter-CounterPAC with the aim at depleting the resources of any successful PAC with these intentions.
From my perspective, this is a long run failing strategy, but has the possibly to succeed in the short run. It would need to hit the reps, and hit hard. Then immediately (within a few election cycles) turn and pass strong disclosure laws to create a change in the way the game works.