4 ms·

Lawrence Lessig: I’m Trying to Run for President, but the Democrats Won’t Let Me

39 points by boh 11y ago

jacobolus 11y ago
Larry Lessig is a smart guy, and I appreciate his activism about copyright, etc., but he is not a serious presidential candidate. You can’t just decide to run for president on a whim with no connections or support and hope to have one of the major political parties welcome you with open arms. It’s cute that he wants to promote his message by using Democratic primary debates as a media platform, but also entirely understandable that they aren’t going to let him. Everyone at the DNC is busy in the middle of campaign season, and from their perspective he’s basically wasting their time. “But unlike Clinton and Sanders and O’Malley, I’m willing to tell America the truth about these urgent and important needs. [...] That truth doesn’t play well in D.C. The consultants think it’s a downer. They fear downers don’t win votes.” Give me a break.
- unethical_ban 11y ago
  Well, he's a known name in political circles, he raised a non-trivial amount of money for the purpose of running a campaign, and he's a more serious candidate for president than several others whose names are much more out there. Given how corrupt and paid-off Debbie Schultz is, and how the DNC punishes Democratic candidates for participating in unsanctioned debates (!) I think he has a right to be angry. Not to mention, his point is spot on. the country won't chaneg without campaign finance and electoral reform. EDIT: Just to cite: “We’re not changing the process. We’re having six debates,” said Wasserman Schultz, who has been under fire from several Democratic presidential candidates over the debates. “The candidates will be uninvited from subsequent debates if they accept an invitation to anything outside of the six sanctioned debates.” http://thehill.com/blogs/ballot-box/presidential-races/253196-dnc-chair-closes-door-on-more-debates http://thehill.com/blogs/ballot-box/presidential-races/25319...
- qrendel 11y ago
  So it's up to the inner circle of the DNC to decide which candidates aren't a "waste of time"? I thought that was up to the primary voters. The worst that could be said is that perhaps a one-issue candidate isn't a viable contender for the presidency, but that should be up to the voters, not up to a small group of political insiders to decide who our choices for the nomination are. That's kind of the idea behind his entire campaign.
  - nkurz 11y ago
    So it's up to the inner circle of the DNC to decide which candidates aren't a "waste of time"? I thought that was up to the primary voters. Yes, the purpose of a political party is to further the goals of the leadership of that party. The party has concluded (likely correctly) that including Lessig in their debates will not further their agenda. It seems strangely naive (or possibly disingenuous) for Lessig to suggest that there is something unexpected about this.
    - qrendel 11y ago
      The point is that if voters would otherwise support someone, but they can't run because an inner circle of political elites won't let them, then those people are an obstruction to democracy (slash representative republic). They aren't doing us all a favor by serving as gatekeepers to which platforms we get to support. It's also representative of their opinion of Lessig's views and platforms, which isn't a positive reflection on them, imo. This is also just the nomination, not having him compete as a second candidate in the general election, so whoever would likely beat him would likely still go on to win the nomination. Keeping him out only directly serves to silence him; it's not like Bernie would end up beating out Clinton for the nomination as a result of letting Lessig run alongside them.
      - nkurz 11y ago
        The point is that if voters would otherwise support someone, but they can't run because an inner circle of political elites won't let them, then those people are an obstruction to democracy I think we agree. I'm just pointing out that this is not a problem with this specific decision by the Democratic party, but an inherent problem with any system that allows a small number of powerful political parties to act as the gatekeepers deciding who can appear on the ballot. This is the system we have, and it is an impediment to democracy.
- acjohnson55 11y ago
  Most of the candidates aren't serious. The point of the debates should be to showcase a range of viewpoints.
alexandercrohde 11y ago
-- A “democracy” in which 400 families give 50 percent of the money in campaigns is not American democracy. That's a really compelling statistic if true. I wish there was a source for it. Anybody know more?
- funcSoulBrother 11y ago
  https://www.washingtonpost.com/opinions/a-wealthy-oligarchy-of-donors-is-dominating-the-2016-election/2015/08/04/153879ee-3ad3-11e5-8e98-115a3cf7d7ae_story.html https://www.washingtonpost.com/opinions/a-wealthy-oligarchy-... http://www.nytimes.com/2015/08/02/us/small-pool-of-rich-donors-dominates-election-giving.html http://www.nytimes.com/2015/08/02/us/small-pool-of-rich-dono...
- nkurz 11y ago
  Perhaps try Google for that phrase? https://www.google.com/search?q=A+“democracy”+in+which+400+families+give+50+percent+of+the+money+in+campaigns+is+not+American+democracy https://www.google.com/search?q=A+“democracy”+in+which+400+f... The first hit for me is the Larry Lessig piece, but the second two have lots of background information on the source of the statistics: http://www.nytimes.com/2015/08/02/us/small-pool-of-rich-donors-dominates-election-giving.html http://www.nytimes.com/2015/08/02/us/small-pool-of-rich-dono... http://www.zerohedge.com/news/2015-08-04/american-oligarchy-400-families-represent-50-money-raised-2016-presidential-candidat http://www.zerohedge.com/news/2015-08-04/american-oligarchy-... http://www.nytimes.com/2015/08/02/us/small-pool-of-rich-donors-dominates-election-giving.html http://www.nytimes.com/2015/08/02/us/small-pool-of-rich-dono... (Yes, I intend this to be slightly snarky in a behavior changing manner. It's wonderful to wonder about sources for statistics, but seems lazy to ask the question seemingly without doing any basic research. Contrast the utility to the group of the bare question versus a post that included some links with the answers from the start.)
  - alexandercrohde 11y ago
    kinda ad-hominem. I disagree with the approach that somehow advancing the discussion a half-step by calling attention to an important piece of the article (rather than taking the full step of going on to research it) is unproductive or should be called out.
kazinator 11y ago
Slight irony? > My platform is simple: end the corrupting influence of money in Washington ... not formally welcomed me into the race—despite my raising money at a faster pace than more than half the pack :)

39 points by boh 11y ago

Larry Lessig is a smart guy, and I appreciate his activism about copyright, etc., but he is not a serious presidential candidate. You can’t just decide to run for president on a whim with no connections or support and hope to have one of the major political parties welcome you with open arms. It’s cute that he wants to promote his message by using Democratic primary debates as a media platform, but also entirely understandable that they aren’t going to let him. Everyone at the DNC is busy in the middle of campaign season, and from their perspective he’s basically wasting their time. “But unlike Clinton and Sanders and O’Malley, I’m willing to tell America the truth about these urgent and important needs. [...] That truth doesn’t play well in D.C. The consultants think it’s a downer. They fear downers don’t win votes.” Give me a break.

unethical_ban 11y ago
Well, he's a known name in political circles, he raised a non-trivial amount of money for the purpose of running a campaign, and he's a more serious candidate for president than several others whose names are much more out there. Given how corrupt and paid-off Debbie Schultz is, and how the DNC punishes Democratic candidates for participating in unsanctioned debates (!) I think he has a right to be angry. Not to mention, his point is spot on. the country won't chaneg without campaign finance and electoral reform. EDIT: Just to cite: “We’re not changing the process. We’re having six debates,” said Wasserman Schultz, who has been under fire from several Democratic presidential candidates over the debates. “The candidates will be uninvited from subsequent debates if they accept an invitation to anything outside of the six sanctioned debates.” http://thehill.com/blogs/ballot-box/presidential-races/253196-dnc-chair-closes-door-on-more-debates http://thehill.com/blogs/ballot-box/presidential-races/25319...
qrendel 11y ago
So it's up to the inner circle of the DNC to decide which candidates aren't a "waste of time"? I thought that was up to the primary voters. The worst that could be said is that perhaps a one-issue candidate isn't a viable contender for the presidency, but that should be up to the voters, not up to a small group of political insiders to decide who our choices for the nomination are. That's kind of the idea behind his entire campaign.
- nkurz 11y ago
  So it's up to the inner circle of the DNC to decide which candidates aren't a "waste of time"? I thought that was up to the primary voters. Yes, the purpose of a political party is to further the goals of the leadership of that party. The party has concluded (likely correctly) that including Lessig in their debates will not further their agenda. It seems strangely naive (or possibly disingenuous) for Lessig to suggest that there is something unexpected about this.
  - qrendel 11y ago
    The point is that if voters would otherwise support someone, but they can't run because an inner circle of political elites won't let them, then those people are an obstruction to democracy (slash representative republic). They aren't doing us all a favor by serving as gatekeepers to which platforms we get to support. It's also representative of their opinion of Lessig's views and platforms, which isn't a positive reflection on them, imo. This is also just the nomination, not having him compete as a second candidate in the general election, so whoever would likely beat him would likely still go on to win the nomination. Keeping him out only directly serves to silence him; it's not like Bernie would end up beating out Clinton for the nomination as a result of letting Lessig run alongside them.
    - nkurz 11y ago
      The point is that if voters would otherwise support someone, but they can't run because an inner circle of political elites won't let them, then those people are an obstruction to democracy I think we agree. I'm just pointing out that this is not a problem with this specific decision by the Democratic party, but an inherent problem with any system that allows a small number of powerful political parties to act as the gatekeepers deciding who can appear on the ballot. This is the system we have, and it is an impediment to democracy.
acjohnson55 11y ago
Most of the candidates aren't serious. The point of the debates should be to showcase a range of viewpoints.

alexandercrohde 11y ago

-- A “democracy” in which 400 families give 50 percent of the money in campaigns is not American democracy. That's a really compelling statistic if true. I wish there was a source for it. Anybody know more?

funcSoulBrother 11y ago
https://www.washingtonpost.com/opinions/a-wealthy-oligarchy-of-donors-is-dominating-the-2016-election/2015/08/04/153879ee-3ad3-11e5-8e98-115a3cf7d7ae_story.html https://www.washingtonpost.com/opinions/a-wealthy-oligarchy-... http://www.nytimes.com/2015/08/02/us/small-pool-of-rich-donors-dominates-election-giving.html http://www.nytimes.com/2015/08/02/us/small-pool-of-rich-dono...
nkurz 11y ago
Perhaps try Google for that phrase? https://www.google.com/search?q=A+“democracy”+in+which+400+families+give+50+percent+of+the+money+in+campaigns+is+not+American+democracy https://www.google.com/search?q=A+“democracy”+in+which+400+f... The first hit for me is the Larry Lessig piece, but the second two have lots of background information on the source of the statistics: http://www.nytimes.com/2015/08/02/us/small-pool-of-rich-donors-dominates-election-giving.html http://www.nytimes.com/2015/08/02/us/small-pool-of-rich-dono... http://www.zerohedge.com/news/2015-08-04/american-oligarchy-400-families-represent-50-money-raised-2016-presidential-candidat http://www.zerohedge.com/news/2015-08-04/american-oligarchy-... http://www.nytimes.com/2015/08/02/us/small-pool-of-rich-donors-dominates-election-giving.html http://www.nytimes.com/2015/08/02/us/small-pool-of-rich-dono... (Yes, I intend this to be slightly snarky in a behavior changing manner. It's wonderful to wonder about sources for statistics, but seems lazy to ask the question seemingly without doing any basic research. Contrast the utility to the group of the bare question versus a post that included some links with the answers from the start.)
- alexandercrohde 11y ago
  kinda ad-hominem. I disagree with the approach that somehow advancing the discussion a half-step by calling attention to an important piece of the article (rather than taking the full step of going on to research it) is unproductive or should be called out.

kazinator 11y ago

Slight irony? > My platform is simple: end the corrupting influence of money in Washington ... not formally welcomed me into the race—despite my raising money at a faster pace than more than half the pack :)