7 ms·

Lessig would step down after fixing campaign finance corruption

30 points by getrdone 11y ago

getrdone 11y ago
Larry listened to Aaron Schwartz'es clear insight... the political operating system must be fixed before any other meaningful issue reforms can be discussed. His singular focus on that specific, hard issue combined with a pledge to step down after fixing just that is interesting, in a George Washington-revivalist manner. I think he needs a lot of coordinated "muscle" from broad support in order to push this massive "boulder" up and over the "mountain" of institutionalized resistance (the rich, lobbyists and entrenched politicians will fight this one to the death, so he needs to prepare to fight World Wars III, IV & V).
djur 11y ago
What motivation would Congress possibly have to cooperate with an intentionally lame-duck President? The President is not able to unilaterally push through legislation, and the idea of using a presidential election as a referendum is deeply flawed. However, his platform is admirable and I hope he draws more attention to electoral and campaign finance reform. Perhaps this movement could be redirected toward a constitutional amendment? That would be both more feasible and more effective (since it wouldn't be vulnerable to repeal at any time).
- geofft 11y ago
  I've always understood his position as implying that he'll pocket-veto anything else that passes his desk, and nothing interesting (like, oh, passing a budget) can get through today's Congress with a supermajority. It's in Congress's interest to get the stupid reform bill passed as quickly as possible so that a normal president can sign the rest of their bills. (Presumably this would be most effectively paired with an establishment candidate as VP who intends to run for re-election, so that he/she is answerable to the party bosses as usual.) And they have pretty good political cover for voting in favor of these bills: they can tell their constituents that it's all the fault of this ridiculous Harvard academic that the outgroup voted for. Rolling Stone did an interview where they asked him what happens if something goes wrong in the timeframe between when he takes office and when Congress realizes they should just pass the bills: http://www.rollingstone.com/politics/news/meet-the-presidential-hopeful-whod-quit-after-signing-a-single-law-20150819 http://www.rollingstone.com/politics/news/meet-the-president... RS: But what happens if you get elected president, and then — before your big bill gets passed — Iran goes crazy? Who, then, deals with the ayatollahs, or ISIS, or whatever the crisis is? LL: The person who is elected the president. That person has to convince the public that, in the case of something extraordinary, they could act as a kind of leader that the nation needs at the time of crisis. RS: You're saying you've got the qualifications to make those kinds of decisions in the interim? LL: Absolutely. If I'm not qualified to be that person, I shouldn't be president. I trust Lessig to be a reasonable-enough person that in the event of war or some other national emergency, he'll suspend his pocket-veto policy, and either act like a real president or resign unconditionally and let the VP take over. I agree with him that if you don't trust him to do that, you shouldn't vote for him.
  - djur 11y ago
    This is all assuming that Congress wouldn't (with some justification, frankly) view the maneuver as an unconscionable assault on the constitutional separation of powers and adopt a total war stance against Lessig. I have no trouble believing that it would be easier to get a veto-proof majority of Congress to pass enough funding to keep the government running than it would to get a simple majority to pass Lessig's platform. You'd end up with only bills that represented the bipartisan "center" in DC, which means lots of money for the security state and cuts for social services. No appointed offices that would require congressional approval would be filled (and would Lessig even appoint anyone?). It could very well be the biggest constitutional crisis since the Civil War, if things went badly.
ed 11y ago
Lessig's proposal, per https://lessigforpresident.com/the-act/ https://lessigforpresident.com/the-act/: 1. Make election day a national holiday 2. Implement ranked-choice voting[1], and draw districts for equal representation[2] 3. Give voters campaign donation vouchers and limit lobbying, described as a hybrid between the Government By the People Act[3] and the American Anti-Corruption Act[4] [1] http://www.fairvote.org/reforms/instant-runoff-voting/ http://www.fairvote.org/reforms/instant-runoff-voting/ [2] http://www.fairvote.org/reforms/fair-representation-voting/ http://www.fairvote.org/reforms/fair-representation-voting/ [3] https://sarbanes.house.gov/bythepeople https://sarbanes.house.gov/bythepeople [4] http://anticorruptionact.org http://anticorruptionact.org
- getrdone 11y ago
  Larry puts forth a number of very wise points. I think we need to go further by eliminating PACSs altogether and that limited donations may come from named individuals and must go to a specific candidate only; neither organizations, issue PACs, super PACs nor "personhood" corporations.
Ankaios 11y ago
I think it's great that Lessig is interested in running, but I think the intent of being a single-issue "referendum president" is, to be polite, misguided. It's not actually the choice of the president whether a single issue is the only issue, regardless of how much he might want that to be the case. If elected, he would have to run the executive branch, which means he would need to select a cabinet, unless he is planning on just hanging on to the previous guy's choices until he has finished his quest. We're going to judge him on his perceived ability to do that, as well as everything else a president has to do. Further, if he is perceived as competent enough to do all that, why would I vote to hire him as chief executive of the nation when he has stated he is going to quit soon after he is elected? His running mate will have be chosen far more carefully than normal. Also, why would I be willing to leave the decision about the replacement vice president to a bunch of people in Washington? By pledging to quit, he is effectively eliminating our direct voice on half of the ticket. Mr. Lessig, if you want a chance at my vote you have to run for real and commit to serving your full term to the best of your abilities. I hope you do—I think you are up to the task.
- omginternets 11y ago
  I'm not sure I follow. If Lessig were to step down and hand power over to the vice president, then couldn't the vice president freely appoint a new cabinet? Even if we got stuck with a crappy cabinet for four years, it would be survivable (see 2000 - 2004) and the good that would come out of fixing campaign corruption would be immeasurable. >Further, if he is perceived as competent enough to do all that, why would I vote to hire him as chief executive of the nation when he has stated he is going to quit soon after he is elected? Because he doesn't think he is competent to run the country; he thinks he's competent to fix a specific problem. I just found out about this guy 10 minutes ago, but I very much welcome this kind of discourse and honestly wish there were more of it.
  - Ankaios 11y ago
    If Lessig were to step down and hand power over to the vice president, then couldn't the vice president freely appoint a new cabinet? Lessig would have to govern until he finished enacting his agenda. That could take years. Plus, selecting a good cabinet would off-load distractions from him, allowing him to focus more on his core objectives. Even if we got stuck with a crappy cabinet for four years, it would be survivable A "survivable" term isn't the threshold I personally use when voting for candidates. :)
snarfy 11y ago
It's a great idea, but it would take two terms just to make that proposal stick. It's going to take a lot more work to take money out of politics. Signing some papers and walking away won't work.
- djur 11y ago
  Some people call it the "Green Lantern theory of presidential power" -- that for one person with sufficient purity of intent and force of will, anything is possible. But the President doesn't get a magic ring of cosmic power, and the American political system was specifically designed to prevent rapid, radical change without comprehensive and unified support from all three branches.
  - getrdone 11y ago
    Larry Lessig, George Washington and all other figures are/were human beings like the rest of us; it's only other people which catapult them onto pedestals. I think we should take stock in the coming socio-political fight for social justice, which needs a strong and wise torchbearer, so that it does not devolve into a French Revolution, but instead an insurrection in the spirit of democracy's promise of continual revolution. Because without a equality functioning across-the-board, history has shown time-and-time-again, that people inevitably seek country justice if city justice doesn't work for them. (It's not "right," but it's human nature.)
omginternets 11y ago
I find it honestly surprising that people can both lament the state of campaign corruption in the U.S., and then dismiss someone who displays -- by all appearances -- a genuine intent on fixing the problem. I swear I see comments endorsing constitutional amendments to this effect daily on HN. You can question the likelihood that Lessig gets elected, but you certainly can't fault his program. A program doesn't have to fix everything in order to be a significant step in the right direction. The only conclusion I can draw from this is that you people don't actually want to fix anything.
- getrdone 11y ago
  Amen (and I'm an atheist). Two sources probably: I think people get acclimatized to the situation and fear big improvements because it involves change, and change is scary. And also, there is an amount of jealousy and resentment directed towards anyone whom may have a real shot at successfully fixing things because they won't get credit in history books. (This last one is also commonly experienced by anyone whom becomes much more successful in whatever they're doing. It sucks, but friends and peers fear being left behind.)
onewaystreet 11y ago
Lessig is the embodiment of the great ignorance that a lot of people in tech have for politics. This comment is going to come off as nothing more than an ad hominem, but it would take multiple paragraphs to fully explain everything that is misguided about this plan.
- omginternets 11y ago
  Then please write the several paragraphs, else: 1. Your comment serves no purpose 2. I might be tempted to vote for the guy out of ignorance
logn 11y ago
I don't see what's to stop special-interest-funded candidates from using their already existing money to advertise to the people and get as many My Voice Tax Credits from them as possible (if only to dry up money for the other candidates). And I also think the Anti-Corruption Act he's promoting will eventually be gutted by the Supreme Court, as they've done to similar laws in the past: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/First_Amendment_to_the_United_States_Constitution#Campaign_finance https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/First_Amendment_to_the_United_... A Constitutional amendment would at least trump the Supreme Court. I wish Lessig would just insist on getting Congress to pass an Amendment he wants. But the states are already on their way, bypassing Congress: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wolf_PAC#Progress_in_particular_states https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wolf_PAC#Progress_in_particula... I like the other solutions Lessig is promoting, especially FairVote.

30 points by getrdone 11y ago

Larry listened to Aaron Schwartz'es clear insight... the political operating system must be fixed before any other meaningful issue reforms can be discussed. His singular focus on that specific, hard issue combined with a pledge to step down after fixing just that is interesting, in a George Washington-revivalist manner. I think he needs a lot of coordinated "muscle" from broad support in order to push this massive "boulder" up and over the "mountain" of institutionalized resistance (the rich, lobbyists and entrenched politicians will fight this one to the death, so he needs to prepare to fight World Wars III, IV & V).

djur 11y ago

What motivation would Congress possibly have to cooperate with an intentionally lame-duck President? The President is not able to unilaterally push through legislation, and the idea of using a presidential election as a referendum is deeply flawed. However, his platform is admirable and I hope he draws more attention to electoral and campaign finance reform. Perhaps this movement could be redirected toward a constitutional amendment? That would be both more feasible and more effective (since it wouldn't be vulnerable to repeal at any time).

geofft 11y ago
I've always understood his position as implying that he'll pocket-veto anything else that passes his desk, and nothing interesting (like, oh, passing a budget) can get through today's Congress with a supermajority. It's in Congress's interest to get the stupid reform bill passed as quickly as possible so that a normal president can sign the rest of their bills. (Presumably this would be most effectively paired with an establishment candidate as VP who intends to run for re-election, so that he/she is answerable to the party bosses as usual.) And they have pretty good political cover for voting in favor of these bills: they can tell their constituents that it's all the fault of this ridiculous Harvard academic that the outgroup voted for. Rolling Stone did an interview where they asked him what happens if something goes wrong in the timeframe between when he takes office and when Congress realizes they should just pass the bills: http://www.rollingstone.com/politics/news/meet-the-presidential-hopeful-whod-quit-after-signing-a-single-law-20150819 http://www.rollingstone.com/politics/news/meet-the-president... RS: But what happens if you get elected president, and then — before your big bill gets passed — Iran goes crazy? Who, then, deals with the ayatollahs, or ISIS, or whatever the crisis is? LL: The person who is elected the president. That person has to convince the public that, in the case of something extraordinary, they could act as a kind of leader that the nation needs at the time of crisis. RS: You're saying you've got the qualifications to make those kinds of decisions in the interim? LL: Absolutely. If I'm not qualified to be that person, I shouldn't be president. I trust Lessig to be a reasonable-enough person that in the event of war or some other national emergency, he'll suspend his pocket-veto policy, and either act like a real president or resign unconditionally and let the VP take over. I agree with him that if you don't trust him to do that, you shouldn't vote for him.
- djur 11y ago
  This is all assuming that Congress wouldn't (with some justification, frankly) view the maneuver as an unconscionable assault on the constitutional separation of powers and adopt a total war stance against Lessig. I have no trouble believing that it would be easier to get a veto-proof majority of Congress to pass enough funding to keep the government running than it would to get a simple majority to pass Lessig's platform. You'd end up with only bills that represented the bipartisan "center" in DC, which means lots of money for the security state and cuts for social services. No appointed offices that would require congressional approval would be filled (and would Lessig even appoint anyone?). It could very well be the biggest constitutional crisis since the Civil War, if things went badly.

ed 11y ago

Lessig's proposal, per https://lessigforpresident.com/the-act/ https://lessigforpresident.com/the-act/: 1. Make election day a national holiday 2. Implement ranked-choice voting[1], and draw districts for equal representation[2] 3. Give voters campaign donation vouchers and limit lobbying, described as a hybrid between the Government By the People Act[3] and the American Anti-Corruption Act[4] [1] http://www.fairvote.org/reforms/instant-runoff-voting/ http://www.fairvote.org/reforms/instant-runoff-voting/ [2] http://www.fairvote.org/reforms/fair-representation-voting/ http://www.fairvote.org/reforms/fair-representation-voting/ [3] https://sarbanes.house.gov/bythepeople https://sarbanes.house.gov/bythepeople [4] http://anticorruptionact.org http://anticorruptionact.org

getrdone 11y ago
Larry puts forth a number of very wise points. I think we need to go further by eliminating PACSs altogether and that limited donations may come from named individuals and must go to a specific candidate only; neither organizations, issue PACs, super PACs nor "personhood" corporations.

Ankaios 11y ago

I think it's great that Lessig is interested in running, but I think the intent of being a single-issue "referendum president" is, to be polite, misguided. It's not actually the choice of the president whether a single issue is the only issue, regardless of how much he might want that to be the case. If elected, he would have to run the executive branch, which means he would need to select a cabinet, unless he is planning on just hanging on to the previous guy's choices until he has finished his quest. We're going to judge him on his perceived ability to do that, as well as everything else a president has to do. Further, if he is perceived as competent enough to do all that, why would I vote to hire him as chief executive of the nation when he has stated he is going to quit soon after he is elected? His running mate will have be chosen far more carefully than normal. Also, why would I be willing to leave the decision about the replacement vice president to a bunch of people in Washington? By pledging to quit, he is effectively eliminating our direct voice on half of the ticket. Mr. Lessig, if you want a chance at my vote you have to run for real and commit to serving your full term to the best of your abilities. I hope you do—I think you are up to the task.

omginternets 11y ago
I'm not sure I follow. If Lessig were to step down and hand power over to the vice president, then couldn't the vice president freely appoint a new cabinet? Even if we got stuck with a crappy cabinet for four years, it would be survivable (see 2000 - 2004) and the good that would come out of fixing campaign corruption would be immeasurable. >Further, if he is perceived as competent enough to do all that, why would I vote to hire him as chief executive of the nation when he has stated he is going to quit soon after he is elected? Because he doesn't think he is competent to run the country; he thinks he's competent to fix a specific problem. I just found out about this guy 10 minutes ago, but I very much welcome this kind of discourse and honestly wish there were more of it.
- Ankaios 11y ago
  If Lessig were to step down and hand power over to the vice president, then couldn't the vice president freely appoint a new cabinet? Lessig would have to govern until he finished enacting his agenda. That could take years. Plus, selecting a good cabinet would off-load distractions from him, allowing him to focus more on his core objectives. Even if we got stuck with a crappy cabinet for four years, it would be survivable A "survivable" term isn't the threshold I personally use when voting for candidates. :)

snarfy 11y ago

It's a great idea, but it would take two terms just to make that proposal stick. It's going to take a lot more work to take money out of politics. Signing some papers and walking away won't work.

djur 11y ago
Some people call it the "Green Lantern theory of presidential power" -- that for one person with sufficient purity of intent and force of will, anything is possible. But the President doesn't get a magic ring of cosmic power, and the American political system was specifically designed to prevent rapid, radical change without comprehensive and unified support from all three branches.
- getrdone 11y ago
  Larry Lessig, George Washington and all other figures are/were human beings like the rest of us; it's only other people which catapult them onto pedestals. I think we should take stock in the coming socio-political fight for social justice, which needs a strong and wise torchbearer, so that it does not devolve into a French Revolution, but instead an insurrection in the spirit of democracy's promise of continual revolution. Because without a equality functioning across-the-board, history has shown time-and-time-again, that people inevitably seek country justice if city justice doesn't work for them. (It's not "right," but it's human nature.)

omginternets 11y ago

I find it honestly surprising that people can both lament the state of campaign corruption in the U.S., and then dismiss someone who displays -- by all appearances -- a genuine intent on fixing the problem. I swear I see comments endorsing constitutional amendments to this effect daily on HN. You can question the likelihood that Lessig gets elected, but you certainly can't fault his program. A program doesn't have to fix everything in order to be a significant step in the right direction. The only conclusion I can draw from this is that you people don't actually want to fix anything.

getrdone 11y ago
Amen (and I'm an atheist). Two sources probably: I think people get acclimatized to the situation and fear big improvements because it involves change, and change is scary. And also, there is an amount of jealousy and resentment directed towards anyone whom may have a real shot at successfully fixing things because they won't get credit in history books. (This last one is also commonly experienced by anyone whom becomes much more successful in whatever they're doing. It sucks, but friends and peers fear being left behind.)

onewaystreet 11y ago

Lessig is the embodiment of the great ignorance that a lot of people in tech have for politics. This comment is going to come off as nothing more than an ad hominem, but it would take multiple paragraphs to fully explain everything that is misguided about this plan.

omginternets 11y ago
Then please write the several paragraphs, else: 1. Your comment serves no purpose 2. I might be tempted to vote for the guy out of ignorance

logn 11y ago

I don't see what's to stop special-interest-funded candidates from using their already existing money to advertise to the people and get as many My Voice Tax Credits from them as possible (if only to dry up money for the other candidates). And I also think the Anti-Corruption Act he's promoting will eventually be gutted by the Supreme Court, as they've done to similar laws in the past: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/First_Amendment_to_the_United_States_Constitution#Campaign_finance https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/First_Amendment_to_the_United_... A Constitutional amendment would at least trump the Supreme Court. I wish Lessig would just insist on getting Congress to pass an Amendment he wants. But the states are already on their way, bypassing Congress: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wolf_PAC#Progress_in_particular_states https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wolf_PAC#Progress_in_particula... I like the other solutions Lessig is promoting, especially FairVote.