26 ms·
Lawrence Lessig wants to run for president in an unconventional way
- deleted 11y ago[deleted]
- ekianjo 11y ago> "We have this fantasy politics right now where people are talking about all the wonderful things they’re going to do while we know these things can’t happen inside the rigged system.” Followed by: > Lessig said he would serve as president only as long as it takes to pass a package of government reforms and then resign the office and turn the reins over to his vice president. He said he would pick a vice president "who is really, clearly, strongly identified with the ideals of the Democratic Party right now," So, wait. You don't want the "System", yet your Vice President is basically a member of the Democratic Party which is part of the precisely bi-party, rigged System right now ? Makes a lot of sense if you want to perpetuate the said rigged System.
- aggronn 11y agoI agree--I think that there are problems deeper than special interests. It would take many years and many people in different parts of government, but I think the real solution is a movement to a multi-party system. One person elected as president can't turn the ship around.
- toufka 11y agoI think the idea is that if you can pass the election reform, then anything that comes afterwards - republican or democrat would be better than what would have come otherwise. The VP doesn't matter at all. Break the rigged system and all else will follow - even if it takes a few more election cycles to get there.
- thrill 11y agoBut Lessig was quite emphatic about his intent to select his successor (the VP) based on Party principles - no discussion on Constitutional principles at all in his platform. Why would Sanders or Warren want to be his VP? If they knew they would become President as soon as Lessig enacted his own brand of mandates, and that those mandates were important enough to get him elected, then why wouldn't they take up the mantle of proposing those mandates in the first place?
- happyscrappy 11y agoWho in this "rigged system" wanted to have marijuana legalized? It is more convenient to believe that a secret cabal is ruining everything than to accept messy reality.
- deleted 11y ago[deleted]
- geebee 11y agoThere may be a disconnect between the ideas of the democratic party and what can be realistically achieved within the current rigged political system. So I think what Lessig may be saying here is that he would pass government reforms that would make it possible to do "all those wonderful things" that can't happen inside this "rigged system", but then turn it over to someone whose ideals he agrees with once that is accomplished. Fair to disagree with those ideals, but it's pretty clear to me that there is a difference between this and perpetuating a rigged system. It could also be reasonably argued that this would, in practice and outcome, not be any different from perpetuating the rigged system. However, I disagree that this contradiction is inherent in what Lessig has said.
- myth_buster 11y agoSo, wait. You don't want the "System" That's not what is said. They are against "rigged system" which from their stand [0] and their previous attempt [1] implies getting rid of corrupting influence of big money. yet your Vice President is basically a member of the Democratic Party which is part of the precisely bi-party, rigged System right now That is an umbrella statement which doesn't hold the ground as there are certain people in the party who are fighting against the rigged system currently. [0] The singular focus of Lessig's campaign would be passing the Citizens Equality Act, a package of reforms that would guarantee the freedom to vote with automatic registration, end partisan gerrymandering and fund campaigns with a mix of small-dollar donations and public funds. [1] He launched Mayday PAC to much fanfare in the spring of 2014, billing it as the "super PAC to end super PACs." But it failed to play a decisive role in any race that year. The group spent more than $10 million going after candidates opposed to measures that would lessen the impact of wealthy donors
- alwaysdoit 11y agoI wish he would just run conventionally.
- jedberg 11y agoMost people don't care enough to care about or understand how important campaign finance is, so it's unlikely he'd even win the nomination, but hopefully he can get enough support to at least get into the debate and bring the issue to a wider audience.
- dougmany 11y agoBut they care about more days off. In one of his videos he says voting day must be on a national holiday. He should really lead with this.
- drjesusphd 11y agoThis is interesting, but I have a hard time seeing how being a transparent office holder (through voter referendums) would work for the office of POTUS. I can see it working well as a legislator and would prefer a system where one of the houses of Congress is direct referendum. I think it would be far more interesting to completely "vacate" the office and do nothing, without formally resigning. The point being that elected officials have far less power than people think. I think the executive would function largely the same without a president or vice.
- ZoeZoeBee 11y agoIt would be nice if the article articulated his ideas for change, other than just overturning the Citizens United decision. For decades the public who haven't been lulled to sleep have clamored for Campaign Finance Reform, increased Limits On Lobbyist, and Transparency. What did we get. Citizens United, lobbyists writing 10,000 page laws riddled with loopholes, and Bills and Administrations which do the exact opposite of what they say.
- toufka 11y agoIt's curious, because he's actually (unusually) explicit about what this referendum would be for.[1] 1) 'Equal Right to Vote' - "...automatic registration, and shift election day to a national holiday." 2) 'Equal Representation' - "ranked choice voting" & degerrymandering 3) 'Citizen Funded Elections' - to align, [money = citizen] rather than [money = moneyed citizen] [1] https://lessigforpresident.com/the-act/ https://lessigforpresident.com/the-act/
- ZoeZoeBee 11y ago# 3 Sounds great # 2 Sounds like a move to a Parliamentary System which I'm for. #1 Well, Unfortunately I'd be more in favor of ensuring voters actually know who and what they're about to cast a vote for. Our Nation was Founded as and is a Republic, The Average American Citizen is not informed enough for us to live in a true Democracy
- fractal618 11y agoRegistered Independent voter here, he's got my vote.
- PythonicAlpha 11y agoFor those, that do not yet know "Lesterland", should get to know it: http://lesterland.lessig.org/ http://lesterland.lessig.org/ (there is a great video talk of Lessig on the page) BTW: Lessig is great!
- rayiner 11y agoSome of his ideas are great (particularly trying to take on gerrymandering), but I think on the money issue he's nearsighted. > He launched Mayday PAC to much fanfare in the spring of 2014, billing it as the "super PAC to end super PACs." But it failed to play a decisive role in any race that year. As Lessig found out, money by itself cannot buy power. Money is a means for magnifying the impact of forces that are already in play. Consider, for example, climate change. During the last debate of the last Presidential election, Barak Obama was falling over himself to be more pro-coal than Mitt Romney. Was it because he hoped to court the coal-industry lobbyists and turn their firehose of political spending in his direction? There wasn't a chance in hell of that happening, and he knew it. He did it to court the voters in central and southern Illinois whose livelihoods are dependent on the coal industry there. We're a sprawling suburban nation addicted to cheap gasoline. Energy companies would have tremendous power even if they didn't spend a penny lobbying. The same is true for banking and finance. People complain about fancy financial instruments, but at the end of the day main street businesses are utterly dependent on payroll loans, consumers are dependent on credit cards, and everyone wants to get a fat adjustable-rate mortgage so they can buy a big suburban house. Do you think banks need to spend any money lobbying to sway politicians in their favor? And I'll also go out on a limb and suggest that money being a factor in politics isn't as bad as it seems. At least when money can influence politics, the noveau-riche can upset the old guard. Consider the auto industry. Traditional carmakers don't need to spend money to buy political power--the fact that they employ hundreds of thousands of middle-class workers guarantees that. But as traditional cars decline, and the Teslas and Googles of the world remake the industry, it's probably a good thing that those companies can use money to overcome the inertia and political mindshare of existing car companies.
- rpedela 11y agoIt is not so much that money leads to influence, but that politicians spend most of their time fundraising. They spend so much time on it that they do not have time to govern effectively. That is his primary argument. He wants to create a system where politicians only have to worry about fundraising during the election rather than their entire term. There is also this side benefit that whatever influence the money buys evaporates to some extent.
- gweinberg 11y agoHe lost me at Sanders.
- clavalle 11y agoWhy?
- jeremyt 11y agoBecause, as an entrepreneur, the absolute last person on earth who I trust to understand the importance of startup investment or innovation is Bernie Sanders. From what I can tell, he's basically a 1960s liberal/socialist. He wants to bring back unions and make them strong, increased government regulation on just about everything, and I'd be very surprised if he was pleasantly disposed to anything in the sharing economy. Having done a startup myself, and now as an investor, taxes have already gone up from 15% to 23.8%. It appears to me that Sanders' solution to everything is higher taxes on the rich (investors). He wants to raise the capital gains tax, he wants to raise the estate tax, and he wants to eliminate the cap on the payroll tax so that rich people pay an extra 12 or so percent on top of the combined ~40-50% of taxes they already paid, combined state and federal.
- pnut 11y agoWhat's so bad about the estate tax? Afraid your sheltered little brats can't hack it with only $5M?
- jeremyt 11y agoI'm actually opposed to repealing the estate tax (And if it were up to me, the estate tax would be 100%), but it goes to my point that he just wants to raise taxes on everything. I actually forgot to mention that he wants a carbon tax, too. /edit typed the exact opposite of what I meant
- quadrangle 11y ago
- arxpoetica 11y agoWhat if one likes the ideas (possibly?), but isn't a Democrat? Makes it difficult when one doesn't like the VP.
- toufka 11y agoGive him his 2 minutes to pitch his idea. The thought is that no matter what your political ideals are, you're better off fixing voting reform first. Whatever issues you care about, you can't actually properly vote them into place. Pick your political goal - whatever it is - it can't effectively be voted upon right now unless you have significant cash. Your primary issue right now as a US voter (Lessig says), be you Republican, Democrat, or anything else, is actually voting reform. Fix that and then you can go back to voting - and this time effectively. It shouldn't matter what other political issues drive you - you can't get any until you fix how voting itself works.
- jawns 11y agoSo what you're saying is that Lessig's candidacy is like regular expressions. If a Republican's primary problem is voting reform, and the way he goes about fixing that problem is to ensure that a solid Democrat gets elected president ... well, now he's got two problems.
- toufka 11y agoExcept it's delayed in action - there are already other threads running that'll still be running by the time the expression completes. So it's okay if you've got zombie threads running until the entire process is upgraded. It gives you time to initialize a clean object before its effective. You won't get immediate (2-4) year change to effectiveness. But during the subsequent election cycles you will. So it'll take at least 6 years following the passing of the act to upgrade the process entirely.
- arxpoetica 11y agoProbably not politically feasible, but could help if he picks someone as politically neutral as possible. > It shouldn't matter what other political issues drive you... But that's the problem; it does matter.
- toyg 11y agoDepressing. The whole project basically ensures he won't be elected (who wants to vote for a President who will not rule?), he's just looking for some quick exposure. It would have been more intellectually honest to do what Jeremy Corbyn has done in the UK: running wholeheartedly, albeit assuming he won't be elected, just to inject a range of ideas in the debate.
- Phlarp 11y agoSo, what Bernie Sanders and Elizabeth Warren are doing?
- tanderson92 11y agoElizabeth Warren isn't running for president, and you are assuming that Sanders doesn't believe he will win. Why do you assume such a thing?
- deleted 11y ago[deleted]
- mikeash 11y agoYou would effectively be voting for two Presidents at once, since you'd be voting for his VP as part of the package, and it's guaranteed (unless they resign or die first) that the VP will become President once the first one quits.
- fossuser 11y agoIt's not about quick exposure - he's written about this idea in "republic lost" - it's an intellectually honest attempt to fix the corrupting influence of campaign financing not being dependent on the people alone. Currently politicians are dependent on the funders and the funders are not the people.
- alextgordon 11y agoCorbyn has the advantage of having extremely weak competition, whereas Clinton and Sanders are actually mildly personable.
- lvs 11y agoThis may sadly pull some critical primary voters from Sanders, who stands in an ideologically similar area, assuming Lessig picks up any steam at all.
- DiabloD3 11y agoYeah, I don't want Lessig to accidentally split the vote. Lessig might want to run with Sanders instead of against him
- myth_buster 11y agoI think this is a valid concern. Perhaps an option is to pool their efforts together while capitalizing on Sanders momentum.
- andrewd18 11y agoIf only the US had a STV system where I could satisfy both my idealism and my pragmatism, in order.
- wahsd 11y agoSanders / Lessig 2016 ? Warren in the Senate. Sounds like the formation of a dream team
- toufka 11y agoThat combination of sincerity and intellect would put our nation two decades ahead of its own time.
- ipsin 11y agohttps://lessigforpresident.com/the-act/ https://lessigforpresident.com/the-act/ https://lessigforpresident.com/donate/ https://lessigforpresident.com/donate/ I will be surprised if he doesn't reach his $1M goal, and much more surprised if anything substantive comes of the effort. The "launch and resign" plan smells bad -- it seems like a hack to avoid having a complete platform, implying that the government will lack a leader during that interval, and using that as motivation to pass the act seems like a bad idea. It also raises the question of who the real VP would be.
- ersii 11y agoPlease be aware that the campaign only wants donations from US citizens. I do not know why, but according to https://lessigforpresident.com/donate/ https://lessigforpresident.com/donate/: By clicking “donate,” I certify that: 1. I am a U.S. citizen or lawfully admitted permanent resident of the U.S.
- mikestew 11y agoDonations for U. S. elections cannot come from foreign nationals[0]. [0] http://www.fec.gov/pages/brochures/citizens.shtml#prohibited http://www.fec.gov/pages/brochures/citizens.shtml#prohibited
- nkurz 11y agoWhat't the advantage of Lessig's win-reform-resign approach rather than convincing a more electable candidate to commit to the same reform? If there is enough public support for Lessig to win the election, presumably there would be enough support for another candidate with more outside support (such as his designated successor) to win with the same platform. The main reason I can see is that Lessig himself views his promise of reform to be more reliable than any another candidate's promise. True or not, I think it would be difficult to convince the general electorate that he should be trusted more than any other candidate.
- betenoire 11y agoFrom his FAQ: > But if the major candidates in the Democratic Primary all credibly commit to making this same type of reform the first priority of the next administration, I have promised to step aside. This campaign is about a principle, not a person. He's not claiming it needs to be him, just that it needs to be someone
- mtgx 11y agoHe doesn't even have to convince one about it - there already is a candidate that supports such reforms and that's Bernie Sanders. Is he guaranteed to win? No. But he sure as hell has a much better chance of winning than Lessig. He should use his crowdfunds to support him.
- jkestner 11y agoYeah, but wouldn't it get people's attention if two candidates on stage at the debate spoke to the same issue? I imagine that will have a much bigger impact than one candidate who people already are inclined to dismiss as too far left. Safety in numbers.
- 300bps 11y ago>What't the advantage of Lessig's win-reform-resign Howard Stern did it in the run for Governor of New York in 1994. It wasn't successful: http://articles.latimes.com/1994-08-05/news/mn-23782_1_personality-howard-stern http://articles.latimes.com/1994-08-05/news/mn-23782_1_perso...
- njharman 11y ago"Lessig said he would serve as president only as long as it takes to pass a package of government reforms" Well that will take longer than two terms. Congress doesn't even play along with the people who are incahoots in rigging the system. It's beyond ridiculous to believe they will play along with their own destruction.
- platz 11y agoagree, the message doesn't match reality on this one.
- aetherson 11y agoYes, this is absurd. "I'll serve as president only until pigs fly."
- deleted 11y ago[deleted]
- dragonwriter 11y ago> Well that will take longer than two terms. That...depends. If Lessig could get elected President with a platform of very specific reforms of the type he is talking about and a pledge to resign in favor of his VP when that package was complete, it would almost certainly mean that his campaign was significant in mobilizing popular attention on those issues in a way which affect the composition of the next Congress and change the political prospects for those reforms. (Particularly in the House. > Congress doesn't even play along with the people who are incahoots in rigging the system. It's beyond ridiculous to believe they will play along with their own destruction. Lessig's proposed reforms won't destroy Congress (arguably, it would free Congress.)
- dllthomas 11y agoI strongly agree with your point that pushing back against the kind of groundswell that would be necessary to get Lessig elected would be hard, and he thus stands quite substantially better odds of getting his agenda through (especially narrow as it is) than typical. That said, I think you miss the parent's point in your last sentence. It would not destroy congress as an entity, but it would change the landscape sufficiently that it safe incumbents would be at risk of losing their seats. That is always what limits reforms of campaign process.
- platz 11y agohttp://www.huffingtonpost.com/lawrence-lessig/why-i-want-to-run_b_7971368.html http://www.huffingtonpost.com/lawrence-lessig/why-i-want-to-...
- JayHost 11y agoI made 500 phone calls for Mayday last year on their behalf. This is not Win / Lose or Patriots vs Seahawks. This is forcing the most important issue to be confronted on the big stage. https://lessigforpresident.com/ https://lessigforpresident.com/
- MrZongle2 11y agoNothing against Lessig, but he has about as much chance of becoming President as I do, and I'm not even forming an exploratory committee. The American electorate has been conditioned to vote for Team Red or Team Blue, and within those increasingly-similar teams their preferred standard-bearers will be chosen by a consensus of large donors in a series of luncheons and closed-door meetings, primaries be damned. It's not so much a sinister New World Order conspiracy as it is a general desire by the elite to influence future governance to secure their wealth. If this weren't the case, then Sanders' standing wouldn't be so noteworthy, and O'Malley wouldn't be concerned about his party's nebulous debate schedule. Likewise, we wouldn't be hearing as much about Jeb Bush. I'm not saying that third-party disruption can't take place, but the time to be forming exploratory committees was months and months ago, if not years. The 2016 Presidential race is well underway, and Lessig hasn't even stepped up to the starting line.
- cryoshon 11y agoFor this election, you're right. It's possible that Lessig is actually trying to posture for a 2020 run that will have a real chance of winning. I highly doubt that Lessig will get the percentage of the vote required for public funding, though. I don't see this campaign as anything other than laying groundwork for future campaigns.
- drivingmenuts 11y agoIt's a interesting idea, but hopelessly doomed. A viable candidate needs to articulate on many issues, as The President doesn't have the luxury of only focusing on a single issue. There's a whole cabinet full of people who run departments that he needs to have potential policies to put in place. As a potential spoiler candidate, it might work by forcing more attention to campaign financing reform, but it's hard to take him seriously beyond that.
- cryoshon 11y agoHm, hopefully he won't act as a spoiler for Bernie. A Sanders-Lessig ticket would look pretty good if Bernie can't get Warren. Bit early in the game for that chatter, though. Lessig still isn't a household name, so I think it's far too late for him to participate in this election cycle as a real candidate. That being said, he's also imperfect as a candidate for a few reasons. Lessig is really good at presentations and speaking eloquently, but he still doesn't quite rile people up in the way that is needed for his kind of insurgent campaign (against who, exactly?). Lessig also doesn't have the cash to get noticed nationwide. He's setting goals to raise a million, whereas Hillary is planning a billion dollar campaign, and the Republicans are likely planning a several billion dollar campaign for whoever they pick. Also, an elephant in the room: the issues Lessig is running on (campaign finance reform, voting reform, ending gerrymandering) are not actually non-partisan in the way that he is trying to market them. Everyone (everyone!) knows that campaign finance reform, gerrymandering, and voter reform are the left's issues. Why? Because the right in the USA needs voter exclusion and balkanization(via the false issue of voter fraud aimed at poor populations) in order to win elections. Campaign finance reform is similar; big money influences both sides heavily, but they favor the right for their business-friendly disposition. Big money favoring the right wing means that prospective candidates from the left are also vetted against how business friendly they are, pulling the mainstream left wing toward the right wing, assuming that candidates act rationally and take the money for grabs. This series of behaviors ultimately results in the far-right wing business cartel promoters that currently comprise Congress. Claiming that Lessig isn't some kind of far-left (for the US) candidate is a tad disingenuous, even if he actually believes it. A popular and well-moneyed Lessig would be a huge threat to big money's influence on politics, to be sure-- in the way that Sanders is currently.
- twoodfin 11y agoBecause the right in the USA needs voter exclusion and balkanization(via the false issue of voter fraud aimed at poor populations) in order to win elections. I like your comment overall, but there's no evidence I'm aware of that this is true. Massachusetts didn't elect a Republican governor in 2014 because otherwise Democratic voters there are balkanized or intimidated. Don't like that specific example? Choose another. Besides, gerrymandering doesn't help the GOP that much. If anything, it's the opposite[1]. If the Democrats want the composition of the House to reflect their national vote totals, they'd need to draw some pretty nonsensical districts to "dilute" their highly concentrated urban votes into suburban areas where they could help swing more seats. This appears to be one reason why Lessig is arguing for larger, multi-member Congressional districts. http://www.nytimes.com/2014/09/07/upshot/why-democrats-cant-win.html?_r=0 http://www.nytimes.com/2014/09/07/upshot/why-democrats-cant-...
- smacktoward 11y agoI admire Larry Lessig's ideals and motivations, but I feel like he consistently undermines his own efforts because of the small problem that he doesn't understand how American politics actually works and seems to have no desire to learn.
- jessaustin 11y agoThat's nothing: he's a law professor at Harvard who doesn't seem to understand how American law works. He was genuinely surprised by the Eldred verdict, and his proposals consistently display little understanding of (or regard for) the First Amendment. EDIT: http://www.legalaffairs.org/issues/March-April-2004/story_lessig_marapr04.msp http://www.legalaffairs.org/issues/March-April-2004/story_le...
- jellicle 11y agoThat might be the dumbest thing I've ever read on HN. Are you aware that Larry Lessig was Eldred's lead counsel, and argued the case before the Supreme Court? Are you aware that he was arguing in support of the First Amendment in that case, and his opponents were arguing against it?
- jessaustin 11y agoAre you aware that Lessig lost that case? Why don't you read that link I provided? Doesn't Lessig seem to agree with me when he notes, "I had let a view of the law that I liked interfere with my view of the law as it is." His attacks on Citizens United are just another example of this. A pragmatic legal mind would see that there is nothing corrupt about a couple of amateur filmmakers making and advertising an amateur film about a politician. A creative legal mind would find a way to fight corruption without fighting the First Amendment rights of amateur filmmakers.
- tlb 11y ago"I will be leader just long enough to institute the necessary reforms" has led to lifelong dictatorships in other countries. Lessig doesn't seem the dictator type, but that particular promise should scare students of history.
- mikegioia 11y agoThat would matter if the US had unlimited presidency terms but it doesn't and there's 0 threat of that happening. The only prior example of this in America is when George Washington stepped down as Commander and Chief when he felt his service was finished.
- joe5150 11y ago"Lessig said he would serve as president only as long as it takes to pass a package of government reforms" So in other words four years, eight if he gets re-elected. Awfully roundabout way of saying that....
- elihu 11y agoI'm having trouble imagining any outcome other than drawing votes away from Sanders. Even if he were to win the primary and the general election, congress is very unlikely to budge. > "Even if she did say exactly the right things, I don’t think it’s credible that she could achieve it because she – and the same thing with Bernie – would be coming to office with a mandate that’s divided among five or six different issues," Lessig said. "The plausibility of creating the kind of mandate necessary to take on the most powerful forces inside of Washington is zero. This is what led me to recognize that we have to find a different way of doing this.” I don't agree with this logic, that "policital capitol" is split among multiple mandates, and that having more mandates makes you less likely to achieve any of them. Having a position on many issues just means that more voters have a reason to vote for (or against) you. Many of those positions are expected of someone running for office under a certain party, and not stating a clear policy preference doesn't usually win you votes from the other party, it loses you votes from your own party. I think Lessig's efforts are better spent continuing to advocate for an article V convention and influencing congressional elections via the Mayday PAC.
- kuni-toko-tachi 11y agoThe problem isn't money in politics, the problem is government. Nearly all taxes that don't fund a very limited set of government functions should be completely eliminated. Your tax money is what gives politicians power. Leftists want more government, more taxes, and centralization of power into the hands of even fewer politicians and yet are puzzled - dumbfounded even - why things are "working". Bernie Sanders is a Hugo Chavez, a fool.
- pnut 11y agoWhere do you get off telling other people what they want?
- maxlybbert 11y agoYeah, really the only way to get money out of politics is to make political contributions less profitable. And, frankly, I don't see that happening.
- pbreit 11y agoIf it wasn't so frowned upon for Electoral College electors to "change" their vote, wouldn't that enable more "third party" runs (which would be "a good thing")? I'd actually like to see Trump or Lessig run but people are so worried about a like-minded candidate leading to their party's loss.
- pbreit 11y agoWarren or Sanders? That's a non-starter. Those two are outlandish even to this progressive.
- Apocryphon 11y agoWould Lessig be an ideal "hackers' candidate"? Hypothetically, would he pardon Snowden and go after the NSA?
- alloyed 11y agoAbsolutely not. As he's said, he's a one-issue candidate: anything else would be up to whoever the democrats pick for VP.
- kevinpet 11y agoI guess we've now discovered our generation's Ralph Nader.
- anonbanker 11y agoHe'd never win. But he's got my vote anyway.
- p_monk 11y agoIf the problem is that monied interest control policy, "getting money out of politics" doesn't solve the problem. Look as Israel as a cautionary tale of a country that did everything right according to the liberal prescriptions. Regardless of implementing everything that Lessig calls for, monied interests still control the political system. How does it work? Well, take a look at Sheldon Adelson's actions. In the US, he buys his influence by being one of the biggest GOP donors. In Israel, he buys his influence by operating the largest daily newspaper (Israel Hoyim), which he runs at a loss of 20+ million a year. Israel Hoyim is the mouthpiece of the Netanyahu government. The paper never strays from the party line, in the same way that Granma never strays from party line in Cuba. This gives Adelson a tremendous amount of influence over the government. Even moreso than he's able to buy in the US. Billionaires will always find creative ways skirt the rules and buy their influence.
- sams99 11y ago"by operating the largest daily newspaper" Cough, I lived in Israel for many years... the biggest daily papers are https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Yedioth_Ahronoth https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Yedioth_Ahronoth (centralist) https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Maariv_(newspaper) https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Maariv_(newspaper) (centralist) https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Haaretz https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Haaretz (Leftish) Also the argument is kind of weird, "don't ban rape, people will still figure out a way to hurt other people, so ... no point"
- p_monk 11y agoIsrael Hayom is indeed the largest paper daily in Israel. There's really no other paper that's even close at this point. Yediot Ahronot was a long-time incumbent, but they simply can't compete. http://www.nytimes.com/2014/04/08/opinion/rosner-how-to-silence-the-israeli-right.html http://www.nytimes.com/2014/04/08/opinion/rosner-how-to-sile... I'm not arguing that we shouldn't take steps to take money out of politics. My argument is yes, let's do this, but let's be realistic about what it will achieve. At the same time, if we really care about eliminating the role money plays in politics, then we need to work towards a system with an equitable distribution of wealth.