Now there are assertions in the piece above… (a good piece with which I much agree) which might suggest that my proposal is in precisely the wrong direction…

I support more political contribution by more people… and more support for a multitudes of constituencies that this piece suggests advance “demosclerosis”… I think this partially mis-understands the problem…

I believe the sclerosis in government is for a multitude of reasons… and ‘professionalized’ interest groups are one of them. But not the only one. In fact its an imbalance in forces of influence… and the inertia of established interests that block the growth of new ones… that has more to do with this. But there are other factors as well. (repurcussions of the altruism dilemma being central and if that’s not clear I’ll explain another time.)

Yet the piece also suggests that… “Regular people come to treat civic problems as something outside themselves, something done to them, rather than something they have a hand in making and could have a hand in unmaking.”

I much agree with this!!!!

So this is the conflict…

The micro-contribution is clearly powerful. I’ve been desperate to see this capability recognized and the design of responsibly since I’m also convinced its inevitable. And the potential for misuse is always there.

But I contend money is a tool of decision at its very roots and this dilemma can’t be avoided by pretending its not the case.

The amount of money needed is largely a result of failing to adequately guard the interests of the Commons at the establishment of the legal/social frameworks surrounding major media technologies over the last century (radio, television and if TPTB have anything to do with it… the Internet will become another victim of this sad neglect.

This cannot be un-debated or discussed. Its too important. For 5 years now I’ve been arguing that the speech and Commons related microtransaction offers the opportunity to establish a people’s transaction network… that will form a central tool for civic revitalization and localization.

Bottom line… if its reasonable to assert that there’s real potential power in the capability to (e.g.) click a link in an email and contribute 25 cents to some lobbying effort… and that moreover its easy to offer this capability, that it would be attractive to groups seeking support, useful to citizens trying to be heard and having impact on those receiving the lobbying effort…

Is the micro-transaction capability:

a positive

a negative

or would it have no effect?

And if its inevitable… and really is a “natural” person’s right (corporations are NOT natural persons)… how should such a capability be offered to best promote good citizenship… and advance a culture of civic responsibility?