4 ms·

This is incredibly gracious of Lessig, to defend someone who treated him poorly. I donated to both his ill-fated Mayday PAC and his ill-fated presidential camp

by dcposch 10y ago

This is incredibly gracious of Lessig, to defend someone who treated him poorly. I donated to both his ill-fated Mayday PAC and his ill-fated presidential campaign last year. He is a selfless guy who is trying to address the root cause of US political dysfunction. I wish him the best of luck in his future projects.

snowwrestler 10y ago
Donald Trump has spent far less money than any presidential candidate in recent history. I am hopeful that this election will finally illustrate to people like Larry Lessig that there are worse things in politics than money. Money is just a tool.
- dcposch 10y ago
  Just because you found an example of a politician making it fairly far (but probably not even getting elected) without the support of the rich does not mean that money in politics isn't a problem. In America, there are two kinds of politicians who can get by without wealthy donors: 1. grassroots candidates who go viral, who can get big social media followings and lots of organic non-ad media 2. independently rich people, who can simply bankroll their own campaigns Bernie Sanders is an example of #1. Ross Perot is an example of #2. Donald Trump is, to an extent, both #1 and #2! Most politicians in the US, both in Congress and at the state level, are neither #1 nor #2. They depend on donors who typically write $1000+ checks, every single election cycle. As a result, they spend a shocking amount of their time talking to rich people. It's called Call Time, and for the average congressperson, it's about four hours per day: https://www.washingtonpost.com/news/wonk/wp/2013/01/14/the-most-depressing-graphic-for-members-of-congress/ https://www.washingtonpost.com/news/wonk/wp/2013/01/14/the-m... -- When people like Lawrence Lessig or Bernie talk about "getting money out of politics", they are not referring to third-world style quid pro quo corruption. They are not talking about an envelope of cash passed under a restaurant table. They are talking about something more subtle that's absolutely pervasive in modern US politics: career politicians whose continued employment depends on their ability to raise money, who every day meet and hear from the wealthiest crust of their constituency. When you spend four hours every day on the phone with the kind of people who might write a $2700 max-allowable-donation check for some representative's re-election campaign, it affects your thinking. Donor issues are always top of mind. How you vote on that pipeline bill today is going to make it either a lot easier or a lot harder to talk to those twenty or thirty guys you have to call next week, asking for money.
  - snowwrestler 10y ago
    Congress is not uniquely problematic because members of Congress have to raise money. Everyone has to raise money. Larry Lessig has had to raise money many times in his career. There are two reasons that members of Congress have to spend so much time raising money. First, there are strict limits on federal campaign contributions. Candidates can only get up to $2,700 from each person per cycle, and no money from organizations at all. Nonprofit guys like Bill McKibben or Grover Norquist can land $100,000 in one meeting. It will take a federal candidate at least 37 individual donors to get the same amount. I'm not saying the limits are bad. I think they are good. But they have side effects. Second, people don't want to give money to politicians, so it takes a ton of time and energy to get even small donations. And here is where Lessig and others have been so counter-productive. They think they're making the sort of subtle argument that you describe. They think they're firing people up for action. But what they've actually done is promulgate 2 simple messages: 1) Money In Politics Is Bad, and 2) The System Is So Broken You Can't Win. Both these messages discourage their fans from engaging effectively in political and civic institutions--thereby making things even worse for themselves. Lessig told all his fans that money is bad and politics is unwinnable... of course he's having trouble creating a political movement!
    - dcposch 10y ago
      > Congress is not uniquely problematic because members of Congress have to raise money. Everyone has to raise money. Larry Lessig has had to raise money many times in his career. I bet Lessig has never spent four hours cold-calling wealthy potential donors even once, let alone every single weekday for years at a time. An academic like Lessig may have to write grant applications every few months. Legislators, both state and Congressional, are uniquely problematic. Few jobs are so constantly dependent on the favor of wealthy donors, and none are in as good a position to repay their generosity, usually in subtle and indirect ways, once in office.
xoa 10y ago
>I donated to both his ill-fated Mayday PAC and his ill-fated presidential campaign last year. I'm sorry to hear that. He ran an incredibly irresponsible and dishonest platform, even for this election. >He is a selfless guy who is trying to address the root cause of US political dysfunction. In politics, as in engineering, programming, development and creative works in general, good intentions are not enough. Granting him the benefit of the doubt that he really was genuinely "trying to address the root cause of US political dysfunction" (and I do in fact doubt that he was) it was a crazy incompetent and blindered effort, exactly the kind of ivory tower BS that he displayed in Eldred v. Ashcroft. Back a year or so ago, September 2015, he gave an interview with Ars Technica [1] (where I also vented now that I look at it) with a bunch of doozies, but the fundamental one was this: >Lessig-on-ars-article: "Reform can still win. The part of the system that is most broken is Congress. We still have the ability to elect a president. And if we elect a president with a super-mandate to demand Congress fix itself, I will do everything possible to make sure Congress does fix itself." Uh, lol? "Demand Congress fix itself"? That's not how it fucking works. Congress is Constitutionally by far the most powerful body, and it does not answer in election terms to the Executive or even the nation as a whole, it answers to individual states or (often extremely heavily gerrymandered) districts, and even more so to the people who actually bother to reliably vote every time. The most powerful and critical Constitutional role of the Presidency is foreign affairs, and while expansion of the executive in the 20th century has increased the domestic role that still is an utterly key part, along with control of and ability to negotiate with (ie., dirty ugly sausage making) Congress. Lessig, Sanders, and Trump all basically were/are running to be King, not President, and a king that didn't particularly care about the rest of the world either and just wanted to pursue their own interests at that. But we do not have kings in the USA, we have Presidents. For a political movement, frankly the Presidency should probably be the FINAL goal, not the first. Bottom-up, in classic American fashion, rather then top-down. It's getting power in towns, in cities, then in states, slowly working up, and then in Congress, that really allows for long lasting change, and that will have the most direct impact on people. It's the way to deal with inevitable setbacks, resistance and failure, and also represents a basic humbleness and self-reflection, as it allows testing the practical application of ideals in limited areas before moving to the national and international stage. It's a long, grueling and unpleasant, un-flashy slog, one that can take years to decades, with no guarantee of success. But that's what it takes. I have very minimal respect for people who try to take shortcuts, who demand instant change in one year and then don't bother to show up to the polls 2 years later because they're just so let down that it all didn't go their way right off, and anyway getting an early ballot or spending a few minutes to a few hours voting in person every few years is just WAY too much to ask a citizen for the preservation and enrichment of their entire society and democratic government!!/extreme sarcasm. This is why I doubt people like him are really "trying to address root causes", because I suspect they find the actual methods it would take to do so too much work or too unpleasant. They want better sausage, but they don't actually like the whole real sausage-making thing, so instead they pursue abstract platforms about idealized Sausage Theory of Utopianism. Incidentally, while I disagree with basically every single thing they stand for, this is an area where movements like the Tea Party and such got it right (unfortunately). Despite being a tiny fraction of voters, and despite probably never ever seeing one of their own in the Presidency, they've had a massive impact by getting control in local areas and through gaining a strong minority within a major party. At the national level, the "House Freedom Caucus for example with just 42/435 seats has exercised significant influence of the course of the country the last few years despite engaging in rampant obstructionism. If they'd been even somewhat flexible they could have done far more. There are big money backers sure, but they still worked bottom-up and often in the face of hostile party leadership. A tech/governance movement could pursue the same strategy and have a much better base and effects then leaping right for the Presidency, failing, and giving up. Or for that matter succeeding, then failing (because the President can't fix it all themselves), then getting disillusioned even more, and giving up. >Lessig-on-ars-article: If he gets elected and the CEA is passed, he'll resign the presidency and the vice president will take over. And what if the rest of the planet didn't cooperate? What if there was a financial melt down February 1st 2017? What if Russia invaded the Baltics? What about North Korea? What if China moved military forces towards Taiwan? What if some new plague broke out? What if a reactor melted down in the USA, or there was a massive industrial accident? And that's just big ticket possibilities, the POTUS must also deal with a million smaller things, starting Day 1, that are more mundane but nevertheless vitally important. They have to deal with getting the top of the Executive branch staffed up. They have to start getting people approve by Congress right away. There will be affairs of our allies and adversaries both to work on, particularly because in many cases mere perception can affect reality. Really, even potential presidents should be considering and planning this before they're even elected, all of them, no matter how low the odds, just to ensure continuity and hit the ground running as much as possible (as Clinton is doing right now for example [2]). Again, his candidacy wasn't just a bad joke, it was flagrantly irresponsible by every measure. >I wish him the best of luck in his future projects. I do too, so long as they're actually good projects whose failure won't screw over hundreds of millions to billions of people. 1. http://arstechnica.com/tech-policy/2015/09/presidential-candidate-lawrence-lessig-goes-one-on-one-with-ars/ http://arstechnica.com/tech-policy/2015/09/presidential-cand... 2. http://www.politico.com/story/2016/10/clinton-trump-apology-foreign-policy-229930 http://www.politico.com/story/2016/10/clinton-trump-apology-...

by dcposch 10y ago

snowwrestler 10y ago

Donald Trump has spent far less money than any presidential candidate in recent history. I am hopeful that this election will finally illustrate to people like Larry Lessig that there are worse things in politics than money. Money is just a tool.

dcposch 10y ago
Just because you found an example of a politician making it fairly far (but probably not even getting elected) without the support of the rich does not mean that money in politics isn't a problem. In America, there are two kinds of politicians who can get by without wealthy donors: 1. grassroots candidates who go viral, who can get big social media followings and lots of organic non-ad media 2. independently rich people, who can simply bankroll their own campaigns Bernie Sanders is an example of #1. Ross Perot is an example of #2. Donald Trump is, to an extent, both #1 and #2! Most politicians in the US, both in Congress and at the state level, are neither #1 nor #2. They depend on donors who typically write $1000+ checks, every single election cycle. As a result, they spend a shocking amount of their time talking to rich people. It's called Call Time, and for the average congressperson, it's about four hours per day: https://www.washingtonpost.com/news/wonk/wp/2013/01/14/the-most-depressing-graphic-for-members-of-congress/ https://www.washingtonpost.com/news/wonk/wp/2013/01/14/the-m... -- When people like Lawrence Lessig or Bernie talk about "getting money out of politics", they are not referring to third-world style quid pro quo corruption. They are not talking about an envelope of cash passed under a restaurant table. They are talking about something more subtle that's absolutely pervasive in modern US politics: career politicians whose continued employment depends on their ability to raise money, who every day meet and hear from the wealthiest crust of their constituency. When you spend four hours every day on the phone with the kind of people who might write a $2700 max-allowable-donation check for some representative's re-election campaign, it affects your thinking. Donor issues are always top of mind. How you vote on that pipeline bill today is going to make it either a lot easier or a lot harder to talk to those twenty or thirty guys you have to call next week, asking for money.
- snowwrestler 10y ago
  Congress is not uniquely problematic because members of Congress have to raise money. Everyone has to raise money. Larry Lessig has had to raise money many times in his career. There are two reasons that members of Congress have to spend so much time raising money. First, there are strict limits on federal campaign contributions. Candidates can only get up to $2,700 from each person per cycle, and no money from organizations at all. Nonprofit guys like Bill McKibben or Grover Norquist can land $100,000 in one meeting. It will take a federal candidate at least 37 individual donors to get the same amount. I'm not saying the limits are bad. I think they are good. But they have side effects. Second, people don't want to give money to politicians, so it takes a ton of time and energy to get even small donations. And here is where Lessig and others have been so counter-productive. They think they're making the sort of subtle argument that you describe. They think they're firing people up for action. But what they've actually done is promulgate 2 simple messages: 1) Money In Politics Is Bad, and 2) The System Is So Broken You Can't Win. Both these messages discourage their fans from engaging effectively in political and civic institutions--thereby making things even worse for themselves. Lessig told all his fans that money is bad and politics is unwinnable... of course he's having trouble creating a political movement!
  - dcposch 10y ago
    > Congress is not uniquely problematic because members of Congress have to raise money. Everyone has to raise money. Larry Lessig has had to raise money many times in his career. I bet Lessig has never spent four hours cold-calling wealthy potential donors even once, let alone every single weekday for years at a time. An academic like Lessig may have to write grant applications every few months. Legislators, both state and Congressional, are uniquely problematic. Few jobs are so constantly dependent on the favor of wealthy donors, and none are in as good a position to repay their generosity, usually in subtle and indirect ways, once in office.

xoa 10y ago

>I donated to both his ill-fated Mayday PAC and his ill-fated presidential campaign last year. I'm sorry to hear that. He ran an incredibly irresponsible and dishonest platform, even for this election. >He is a selfless guy who is trying to address the root cause of US political dysfunction. In politics, as in engineering, programming, development and creative works in general, good intentions are not enough. Granting him the benefit of the doubt that he really was genuinely "trying to address the root cause of US political dysfunction" (and I do in fact doubt that he was) it was a crazy incompetent and blindered effort, exactly the kind of ivory tower BS that he displayed in Eldred v. Ashcroft. Back a year or so ago, September 2015, he gave an interview with Ars Technica [1] (where I also vented now that I look at it) with a bunch of doozies, but the fundamental one was this: >Lessig-on-ars-article: "Reform can still win. The part of the system that is most broken is Congress. We still have the ability to elect a president. And if we elect a president with a super-mandate to demand Congress fix itself, I will do everything possible to make sure Congress does fix itself." Uh, lol? "Demand Congress fix itself"? That's not how it fucking works. Congress is Constitutionally by far the most powerful body, and it does not answer in election terms to the Executive or even the nation as a whole, it answers to individual states or (often extremely heavily gerrymandered) districts, and even more so to the people who actually bother to reliably vote every time. The most powerful and critical Constitutional role of the Presidency is foreign affairs, and while expansion of the executive in the 20th century has increased the domestic role that still is an utterly key part, along with control of and ability to negotiate with (ie., dirty ugly sausage making) Congress. Lessig, Sanders, and Trump all basically were/are running to be King, not President, and a king that didn't particularly care about the rest of the world either and just wanted to pursue their own interests at that. But we do not have kings in the USA, we have Presidents. For a political movement, frankly the Presidency should probably be the FINAL goal, not the first. Bottom-up, in classic American fashion, rather then top-down. It's getting power in towns, in cities, then in states, slowly working up, and then in Congress, that really allows for long lasting change, and that will have the most direct impact on people. It's the way to deal with inevitable setbacks, resistance and failure, and also represents a basic humbleness and self-reflection, as it allows testing the practical application of ideals in limited areas before moving to the national and international stage. It's a long, grueling and unpleasant, un-flashy slog, one that can take years to decades, with no guarantee of success. But that's what it takes. I have very minimal respect for people who try to take shortcuts, who demand instant change in one year and then don't bother to show up to the polls 2 years later because they're just so let down that it all didn't go their way right off, and anyway getting an early ballot or spending a few minutes to a few hours voting in person every few years is just WAY too much to ask a citizen for the preservation and enrichment of their entire society and democratic government!!/extreme sarcasm. This is why I doubt people like him are really "trying to address root causes", because I suspect they find the actual methods it would take to do so too much work or too unpleasant. They want better sausage, but they don't actually like the whole real sausage-making thing, so instead they pursue abstract platforms about idealized Sausage Theory of Utopianism. Incidentally, while I disagree with basically every single thing they stand for, this is an area where movements like the Tea Party and such got it right (unfortunately). Despite being a tiny fraction of voters, and despite probably never ever seeing one of their own in the Presidency, they've had a massive impact by getting control in local areas and through gaining a strong minority within a major party. At the national level, the "House Freedom Caucus for example with just 42/435 seats has exercised significant influence of the course of the country the last few years despite engaging in rampant obstructionism. If they'd been even somewhat flexible they could have done far more. There are big money backers sure, but they still worked bottom-up and often in the face of hostile party leadership. A tech/governance movement could pursue the same strategy and have a much better base and effects then leaping right for the Presidency, failing, and giving up. Or for that matter succeeding, then failing (because the President can't fix it all themselves), then getting disillusioned even more, and giving up. >Lessig-on-ars-article: If he gets elected and the CEA is passed, he'll resign the presidency and the vice president will take over. And what if the rest of the planet didn't cooperate? What if there was a financial melt down February 1st 2017? What if Russia invaded the Baltics? What about North Korea? What if China moved military forces towards Taiwan? What if some new plague broke out? What if a reactor melted down in the USA, or there was a massive industrial accident? And that's just big ticket possibilities, the POTUS must also deal with a million smaller things, starting Day 1, that are more mundane but nevertheless vitally important. They have to deal with getting the top of the Executive branch staffed up. They have to start getting people approve by Congress right away. There will be affairs of our allies and adversaries both to work on, particularly because in many cases mere perception can affect reality. Really, even potential presidents should be considering and planning this before they're even elected, all of them, no matter how low the odds, just to ensure continuity and hit the ground running as much as possible (as Clinton is doing right now for example [2]). Again, his candidacy wasn't just a bad joke, it was flagrantly irresponsible by every measure. >I wish him the best of luck in his future projects. I do too, so long as they're actually good projects whose failure won't screw over hundreds of millions to billions of people. 1. http://arstechnica.com/tech-policy/2015/09/presidential-candidate-lawrence-lessig-goes-one-on-one-with-ars/ http://arstechnica.com/tech-policy/2015/09/presidential-cand... 2. http://www.politico.com/story/2016/10/clinton-trump-apology-foreign-policy-229930 http://www.politico.com/story/2016/10/clinton-trump-apology-...