13 ms·

Lessig: Why Washington is corrupt

207 points by jv22222 14y ago

jacobmarble 14y ago
It would be fun to gather metrics about fund-raising quotas, funds raised, time spent, etc, per elected official. But, that information belongs to parties, not to the people.
jacoblyles 14y ago
And as someone who supports primarily insurgent candidates from outside the mainstream, the Citizens United decision was a godsend. There is no better way to enshrine the status quo for eternity than limiting outside fundraising. Lessig keeps pounding this drum, but Washington corruption goes a lot deeper than campaigns. Who do your representatives talk to every month? Who does their research for them? Who is a big fish in their home communities? I don't know what the right policy is to address Washington inside dealing. But lets not pretend that limiting campaign money (thereby gutting independent campaigns) is the answer.
- chalst 14y ago
  > thereby gutting independent campaigns I think you need to explain this. Two considerations: 1. In other countries, independent campaigns with little financial backing have had success. The need for very large amounts of money to win elections seems to be distinctive of the US. 2. The independents with such money are "independent" Lesters, in Lessig's terminology (i.e., they are people with enough money to influence elections). So you are using the word independent in a way that seems to show that you are not talking about the same problem.
  - mayneack 14y ago
    An incumbent is already well known. People are willing to give them money and put them on TV because they are already a congressman. A challenger has to have enough money to be taken seriously or pay to get attention via ads etc. I would search for some citations if I wasn't about to get noprocrasted out.
- mayneack 14y ago
  I would recommend reading Lessig's book Republic Lost [1], it's very short and is very quick to discuss that "getting money out" is not the only thing that matters. To your point, you're right that restricting money is often worse for challengers than incumbents. This is because the challengers need to spend money to get their name out and prove they're "serious" as opposed to the incumbents who already have name recognition and can get attention without spending money. However, the issue that he's talking about is different (though related). The problem is that both incumbents and challengers require some small subset of people to support them and fund them. http://www.amazon.com/Republic-Lost-Money-Corrupts-Congress/dp/0446576433 http://www.amazon.com/Republic-Lost-Money-Corrupts-Congress/...
- 1123581321 14y ago
  Republic, Lost has some excellent proposals of methods to reform campaign finance in ways that do not shut out independence.
- apendleton 14y ago
  But when you say "independent campaigns," what you're really talking about is "independent campaigns that happen to attract the attention of very rich people." Most would-be independent candidates don't get that, and are consequently unable to compete against the candidates (independent or otherwise) who do attract high-dollar donors. There's an undeniable bias in which candidates ultimately get selected as a consequence. If that bias favors the kinds of insurgent candidates you tend to favor, lucky for you I guess, but I'm not sure how that supports the argument that this is good for democratic processes generally.
  - jacoblyles 14y ago
    I'm talking about Ron Paul, Rand Paul, and Justin Amash, really. Along with a dozen or so other guys that didn't win. It has always been legal for very rich people like Mitt Romney to spend their own money on campaigns. McCain-Feingold didn't hurt them, it hurt guys like Ron Paul in 2007. We had tens of thousands of people ready to chip in $10k or more, but they were limited to $3k by the law.
- justin66 14y ago
  > There is no better way to enshrine the status quo for eternity than limiting outside fundraising. You state this as if it's obvious. It really isn't. The conventional campaign finance reform thinking, which a lot of us agree with, is that campaign money subverts the normal democratic process wherein people make their voices heard, their representative does what they want, and if they don't the people vote in someone who seems more likely to do the job. You seem to be saying that in the absence of campaign money, nothing will happen at all. That can't be what you actually mean?
  - snowwrestler 14y ago
    The fundamental problem in running a challenger's campaign is that the incumbent is a lawmaker whose every action is covered by the news media. Incumbents have a HUGE built-in publicity advantage; the only way a challenger can counter that is by spending money on ads and events. The secondary problem in today's U.S. election system is that the 2 largest political parties have baked all sorts of advantages for themselves into the law--for example, for a long time party committees were allowed to collect and spend a lot more money than independent committees. Citizens United did away with this distorting advantage, making it easier for people to organize support for challenger candidates outside of political parties.
    - justin66 14y ago
      > Incumbents have a HUGE built-in publicity advantage This isn't true 100% of the time. In recent years people have been pretty eager to vote out incumbents, in some cases in favor of people who can barely speak in complete sentences... > the only way a challenger can counter that is by spending money on ads and events. There's also the press. That last bit is interesting, thanks. edit: I remain amused at what people will downvote
      - nitrogen 14y ago
        If it's just one downvote, it could've been a misplaced finger on a phone touchscreen.
- caseysoftware 14y ago
  It cracks me up that people believe that money is the only way to influence legislators. How many congressmen have kids, siblings, spouses, mistresses who work for companies in their districts? How many Senators have golden parachutes into the private sector after leaving? How many politicians, advisors, etc have book deals, speaking tours, etc.. which happen to be announced right after (days) their retirement? And that's not even including the fact that Congress' staffs and spouses are not covered by insider trading rules: http://www.cnn.com/2012/07/19/politics/stock-act-loophole http://www.cnn.com/2012/07/19/politics/stock-act-loophole
  - wwweston 14y ago
    > It cracks me up that people believe that money is the only way to influence legislators. Not only that, but there's an overemphasis on the idea that donations are an implicit quid pro quo exchange for policy. Let's say we could somehow ban any kind of "exchange" -- not just donations, but these other soft influence deals where money doesn't change hands directly. We'd still have a fundamental problem: people who have lots of money can hire other people to represent their interests to congress. Conversely, how many citizens spend time trying to influence their congressional offices? Not just via vote, not just via the occasional phone call or letter, but by actually meeting with congressional staff.
    - leot 14y ago
      Merely because a problem can't be completely solved doesn't mean efforts to mitigate it are futile.
      - wwweston 14y ago
        I don't mean to suggest that at all -- I think there are a variety of things we could try to mitigate some of the problems associated with campaign finance. What I'm trying to communicate is mostly that when it comes to "buying influence", the problem is a lot deeper than any access/influence purchased via donor-driven fundraising. It's actually inherent in any arrangement where money can be used to hire people to lobby on an employer's behalf. And it's particularly unbalanced when most people don't lobby on a volunteer basis.
- cabalamat 14y ago
  > And as someone who supports primarily insurgent candidates from outside the mainstream, the Citizens United decision was a godsend. If you want non-mainstream candidates to get elected, wouldn't it make more sense to support proportional representation?
walshemj 14y ago
1 Switching to having proper parties with members and using OMOV one member one vote and doing away totally with the primary system and saving all that money would be a better start. 2 Have strict limits on campaign costs and have public service party political broadcasts carried on the major tv channels. 3 Remove all patronage civil service jobs from the president no nice jollies as ambassador for your buddies. 4 Implement better rules of debate no more slipping pork in as an unrelated rider. 5 Have independent speakers of house and congress. Rather than some half assed version of what you have now.
- deleted 14y ago
  [deleted]
kzrdude 14y ago
He began with copyright reform, and ended up here when he realized the broader underlying problems with trying to have sensible reform in washington.
- Symmetry 14y ago
  The real underlying problem, though, is that pretty much the only people who are going to change who they vote for in an election based on copyright reform are the people who feel their livelihoods depend on the current system.
curtis 14y ago
The way we fund campaigns in this country is definitely a big, big problem, but I don't think it's the only one. Many big donors are not driven so much by self-interest as the are by ideology, and in the "second" election, many voters vote based on prejudice rather than their own self-interest. I'm sure this situation has always been true, but it's much more extreme than it used to be. As a supporting point, I'd argue that the current impasse over the budget doesn't actually serve anyone's financial interests (wealthy or otherwise), although it may serve some people's ideological interests.
- mayneack 14y ago
  The impasse of the budget doesn't necessarily need to server anyone's interests. It just has to be enough better than the opposition's proposal to lead to a stalemate. If there's no policy that both the Senate and House prefer to the status quo, we get the status quo, even if both sides oppose the status quo.
- protomyth 14y ago
  The current impasse on the budget actually serves quite a few peoples interest. Sadly, it is seen as a conflict that both sides think will help them in the next election. Neither side actually wants to make hard cuts (Ryan's budget actually increases federal spending).
javert 14y ago
This is an absolutely vicious attack on free speech.
- olefoo 14y ago
  Unless money and speech are exactly the same thing; it's not.
  - protomyth 14y ago
    What is the difference between the money and lobbying of California Prison employees and some PAC? Money is speech. No money, then you have no distribution for speech. It has always been this way. Now party bosses cannot dictate every primary.
- Anechoic 14y ago
  Downvoters, this is something to consider. I'm no fan of money in politics, but I have a real difficult time trying to figure out how to get money out of elections without stifling the ability of folks (rich or otherwise) to advocate for their issues.
  - justin66 14y ago
    Call your congressman, go to her office, etc. etc. All the stuff people who don't have the ability to write a huge check do already.
    - Anechoic 14y ago
      Call your congressman, go to her office, etc. But what if I'm trying to advocate to citizens rather than to my congresscritter?
  - diego_moita 14y ago
    There is a way of doing it, it is called "maximum allowed contribution". A lot of civilized countries have it.
ereckers 14y ago
There's a sentence in the 3rd paragraph talking about what people are calling, "money in politics". He says, "They therefore don't point us to a plausible solution to the problem of our political system today.". I figured I'd read through the article to get the solution. This is how it ends, "We need to find a way back to Madison's original design, so that we can find a way to restore again a government that works. Leaving Lesterland is the critical first step." Thanks Mr. Lessig.
- xal 14y ago
  Watch the video. He endorses many different plans which tackle the same issue. This is not a new idea - he is just ratcheting up the urgency and quite successfully so: "There are a thousand hacking at the branches of evil to one who is striking at the root." - Henry David Thoreau Lessig endorses the idea that this is the root issue of modern (US) times.
drostie 14y ago
The US problem is actually a perfect storm formed by the collision of at least two smaller storms that each forms its own problems. Combined together they self-reinforce and make the system worse. The first storm is what Lessig mentioned: simply getting the money or in-party approval to be on the ballot and run the necessary ads. If your first promises have to be directed towards any group of "Lesters", e.g. the exceedingly wealthy, then you're starting off on a bad foot. The second storm is that the Framers of the Constitution set up our system to vote for individual politicians in individual seats by first-past-the-post voting. This has been elegantly covered by C.G.P. Grey in this video: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=s7tWHJfhiyo https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=s7tWHJfhiyo . The problem here is that we have a two-party system in the first place, because that is a fixed point of the voting process and the system converges to its fixed point over iterated voting. Just to see why this is one of The Big Problems, a fillibuster rule would actually make sense if we had, say, 4-5 parties occupying the Senate. It would say that you need a 60% majority if some of the minority parties were so strongly opposed to the idea they'd filibuster it; in effect you can force the status quo with only a 40% vote, which allows a sort of "minority coalition" to come together on really hot-topic matters. This really gives a great deal more voice to minority parties than is seen in normal coalition governments.
- JoshTriplett 14y ago
  > The second storm is that the Framers of the Constitution set up our system to vote for individual politicians in individual seats by first-past-the-post voting. > The problem here is that we have a two-party system in the first place, because that is a fixed point of the voting process and the system converges to its fixed point over iterated voting. For more details on this: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Duverger%27s_law https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Duverger%27s_law "plurality rule elections structured within single-member districts tends to favor a two-party system" We could fix so many problems with a sane voting system, but it remains one of the most difficult things to change. Between the current system having elected everyone in a position to change it, the public perception of "one person one vote" as the most fair rather than one of the worst systems in common use, and the most popular alternative system being one of the only worse ones, I don't know if we'll ever manage to move to a better system on any large scale.
notatoad 14y ago
From a nearby foreigner's perspective, the strangest thing about US politics to me is the prominence of elections. It's a never-ending media spectacle that candidates have to participate in. The problem isn't the way campaigns are funded, it's how much funding a campaign actually needs. It is obscene that it is even possible to spend so much money campaigning. I look back to the last federal election here in Canada - it was triggered by a vote of no-confidence over the budget, and 5 weeks later the whole process was done. the candidates only had 5 weeks to spend money. no matter how much money you are legally allowed to donate to a campaign, the candidate can only spend so much in such a small time frame. It doesn't matter if you're a billionaire or not, it's impossible to garner much influence when the campaign period is so short. of course, our voter turnout is miserable and the guy we managed to elect is pretty terrible, i'm not trying to say our system is perfect. but the year-and-a-half long campaign with elections every two years just seems so ridiculous.
- saraid216 14y ago
  I wonder if it's our competitiveness. We're more interested in winning a seat than we are in using that seat.
- draggnar 14y ago
  The campaigns do have that much to spend, and the available advertising dollars makes incentives for media companies to fulfill that demand. Profit is made by getting more eyeballs watching, just like a sport. This past election had nearly $2b between the two of them. Toyota spends less than $2b a year on advertising in total. It just seems that the voices of a very, very small group of people who want to keep everything stalemated are drowning out the voices of reason that can push our society forward.
jarrett 14y ago
The free speech issues here should not be underestimated. It's true that money and speech are not identical. But we must consider the right to spend money broadcasting one's speech. For example, what if I'm allowed to speak about patent reform, but I'm forbidden to make a documentary about, simply because that documentary will cost a certain amount of money? We need to consider these kinds of scenarios when we talk about any restrictions on money in politics. I do think there's a proper balance to be struck. My point is just that it's not as easy as saying "money is not speech."
- moultano 14y ago
  That's what's clever about his proposal. You get matching funds from the government if you accept limitations on the contributions you receive.
  - dantheman 14y ago
    But what if I, an individual, do not want one of the candidates to win. I should be able to do anything in my power to cause them to lose - write books, op-eds, documentaries, commercials etc. Additionally, what limits do we put on newspapers, famous people, unions, employees, news programs? "In the final week of the 2012 election, MSNBC ran no negative stories about President Barack Obama and no positive stories about Republican nominee Mitt Romney, according to a study released Monday by the Pew Research Center's Project for Excellence in Journalism. "[1] It seems that any restriction starts to favor certain groups. For instance, unions organizing volunteers "The A.F.L.-C.I.O.’s president, Richard Trumka, said on Thursday that the nation’s labor unions would have 128,000 volunteers working on the “final four days” of the 2012 campaign, saying these volunteers would knock on 5.5 million doors and make 5.2 million phone calls." [2] [1] http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2012/11/21/msnbc-obama-coverage_n_2170065.html http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2012/11/21/msnbc-obama-coverag... [2] http://thecaucus.blogs.nytimes.com/2012/11/01/labor-unions-to-have-128000-campaign-volunteers/ http://thecaucus.blogs.nytimes.com/2012/11/01/labor-unions-t...
    - rayiner 14y ago
InclinedPlane 14y ago
I'd disagree, I'd say these are not the underlying problem, they're symptoms. The underlying problem is the disengagement of the electorate and the horrible process of running a campaign. There are lots of reasons for those things but if you want one big villain to point a finger at, then it should be the media. The media have turned elections into a scandal-driven celebrity-driven mess, almost completely divorced from the issues. Sane people avoid running for office partly because of the horrible negative impact the media will have on their lives. And then you get a process where good candidates are actively driven away early and where nothing of substance is seriously discussed in the media. And we wonder why the system is full of narcissistic glory seekers who think they can get away with anything.
- wvenable 14y ago
  What you're saying is the underlying problem is human nature. I could agree with that. But you are not going to change human nature.
  - InclinedPlane 14y ago
    Hardly. What I'm describing is a dynamics problem. Right now we are at one equilibrium point due to various factors, many of them related to the particular nature of the popular media today. However, there are other equilibrium points (many of them more desirable) which are within our reach if certain changes happen.
    - wvenable 14y ago
      The media reflects human desire. Elections are a scandal-driven celebrity-driven mess because that's what people watch. This is not unique to our time in human history either. But, like all things these days, media so much more efficient, centralized, and responsive.
      - InclinedPlane 14y ago
        That's a simplistic way of looking at it, and it's not entirely untrue, but it's also not the whole truth. The media represents a reflection of human desire filtered and lensed through the particular business models and technological limitations that reign. And the distortion that has been caused by those things, especially ad driven broadcast media, has had a huge impact. I don't excuse the electorate their responsibility in this either but the impact that the media has had on the process has been enormous and in most ways largely negative, especially over the last half century or so. As technology changes, as business models change, as expectations change we may see some big differences in the interface between candidate campgaigns and the electorate but it's too soon to tell how all that will shake out and whether it will lead to an improvement or worsening in matters.
white_devil 14y ago
Now, the next step would be to realize that the underlying problem here is the existence of Government itself. It's an arrangement where a small group of people: - Is in a position to accept bribes in exchange for influence. - Decides everything for 300 million *individuals*. - Uses other people's money (or conjures more out of thin air). - Is not responsible for their actions. What could possibly go wrong?
- jellicle 14y ago
  Good idea. The U.S. should emulate governmentless Somalia, because it has worked so well.
  - white_devil 14y ago
    Ah yes, the classic Somalia-strawman.
    - jellicle 14y ago
      You seem confused. Arguing against a strawman involves describing an opponent's argument falsely and then attacking it. In this case you, who are apparently an extreme idiot, have written a diatribe saying that the "underlying problem here is the existence of Government itself." It is not, in fact, a strawman to describe your argument as being for the dissolution of the U.S. Government entirely, and currently Somalia is well-known for the absence of any effective government.
      - white_devil 14y ago
        Somalia is often trotted out as some kind of pseudo-argument against anarchism, as if it were an example of what would happen without a government. I can see at least a couple of problems with that: - Somalia has a government, regadless of how "effective" it is, and that alone makes it an invalid comparison. - The absence of government means the absence of coercion, and that everything would be based on voluntary trade. It does not automatically follow that every place without a government would be a hellish shithole. That soup requires other ingredients besides "no government-controlled police force". > You seem confused. Arguing against a strawman involves describing an opponent's argument falsely and then attacking it. - I pointed out that the existence of Government is a problem. - You implied I was advocating emulating Somalia (originally calling it "governmentless", but now covering your ass by adding "effective"). "Strawman" seems appropriate. Who was the idiot again?
kevinpet 14y ago
I flagged this article. "Off Topic: Most stories about politics, or crime, or sports, unless they're evidence of some interesting new phenomenon." Lessig's geek-relevant copyright background does not magically make his every political opinion relevant. There's nothing in the article or the comments about technology or intellectual property (or anything else that would make this relevant).
wahsd 14y ago
Unfortunately, although that is a quite obvious to those who pay attention, it is also just the tip of the iceberg in the events that led to the sinking of the titanic. The point is that, obviously the visible tip of the iceberg is the most obvious danger, the real, immediate danger is the portion of the iceberg just below the surface of the water. But that is also just the most shallow consideration of all the factors and events that ended up with the sinking of the titanic. Events and circumstances that were in place before the impact, and those revealed and as a consequence of the impact. For example, a huge part of the corruption of our government comes from Congress' micro-management of the economy, which should not be happening. The legislature is supposed to put broad, systemic foundations into place that work universally, not this inept and incompetent meddling in the smallest details of how a dime is spent or not spent. That body of our government lacks universal principles that can be tested against to validate their actions. That manifests itself in the blatant, overt corruption of bribery and favoritism; not to even touch on the subtle forms of corruption which make up the forest we can't see for all the trees. addendum: Something else that is a rather touchy subject but also a relevant one is that we are operating with a hobbled-together framework that was meant for a whole different era of humanity. Universal suffrage in its current state is corrosive and inadequate. There really need to be qualifications for voting and the power and influence through access of the legislative and executive should solely rest in those who qualify. Now, before you get all upset; it should be a qualification that is universally accessible, e.g., spending time rather than money. Everyone has a more equitable amount of time available for themselves. Some poor will find it difficult to find the time to spend, but so will the wealthy who, e.g., have no interest in putting in time spent with the poor in community forums and colloquium, i.e., the more time you spend attending and participating in public discussions across all economic and political spectrum the more access you have to legislators and the executive. It's fair, its universal, and it's equitable; which is why the wealthy and those who have perverted the current system in their overwhelming favor will vilify and fight dirty to the death to preserve the current con job they have going.
rayiner 14y ago
I have a couple of reactions to this, none of them positive: 1) Calling Washington corrupt devalues the word "corrupt." Dhaka is corrupt. Moscow is corrupt. Washington is dysfunctional, but not corrupt. Americans couldn't even process what an actually corrupt government would look like. They have no frame of reference. There is an important reason to not throw the word "corrupt" around willy nilly. If you convince Americans that this is as bad as it gets, they will become apathetic. After all, what's the point of doing anything if the government is already in such a huge hole there is no climbing out? Overplaying the "corruptness" of Washington draws eyeballs, but it ultimately undermines your overall goal. 2) Blaming money is a diversion. Talking about how "money corrupts the political system" ignores the problem. And the problem is this: the people agree with the corporations. On nearly any substantial political issue you'd like to name, there is not just money but votes on the pro-corporate side. If you want to shut down heavily-polluting and destructive coal power in this country, you have to fight not just the corporations, but all of the people for whom coal is a way of life. When Obama and Romney got on stage during the last debate to see who could get the coal industry's dick the deepest down their throat, they didn't do it because of the money the coal industry donated to their campaigns.[1] They did it because ordinary Pennsylvanians,[2] treat attacks on the coal industry as an attack on their livelihoods and their way of life. If you want to break up or regulate big corporations, you can find plenty of ordinary people to say: "the government shouldn't be messing with those businesses." The only things that attract broad political opposition are things that don't matter (e.g. "earmarks" which account for approximately 0% of the budget). The only things that attract universal condemnation are wiggle-words like "corruption" and "pork" and "wasteful spending" on which everyone can project their own viewpoint and still act like they are in agreement with everyone else. Lessig goes wrong from the very first sentence of this article: "We Americans are disgusted with our government." The basic issue is that people aren't discontent with our government. Sure they have a general distaste for it in the same way they have a general distaste for going to the dentist, but if you sit down and really look at the issues, the big questions of governance, there is no collective consensus about doing anything important differently. Bigger military or smaller military? Tougher on crime or more protective of individual rights? Less religion in the public sphere or more? More taxes or less taxes? More privatization or less privatization? More regulation or less regulation? If you get out of Boston or San Francisco, you can find tons of ordinary people around you to take either side of each of these debates. What you can't find much if any of are substantial, meaningful issues that everyone agrees should be changed, in a specific way, but which are nonetheless held to the status quo by our "corrupt" government. That is real corruption. [1] People dramatically overestimate how much money corporations actually give out. First, it's illegal for corporations to donate directly to candidates. Second, both Obama and Romney raised more direct contributions than the amount of money spent on their behalf by PAC's and non-profit organizations. And direct contributions can and are limited and not affected by Citizens United. [2] And Pennsylvanians are really important! There is a joke: why did God put all of our oil under Saudi Arabia? Well, god put all of our swing votes in Pennsylvania, Ohio, Iowa, etc.
SiVal 14y ago
If Larry really wanted to fight government corruption, he would be campaigning to reverse the centralization of government decision-making power in Washington bureaucrats, returning it to as close as possible to the people who are governed. The people have the most influence over decisions they make for themselves, and less and less as the decision-making power moves to the local community, then to the state, then the elected feds, and by the time you reach the unelected federal bureaucrats, the people have essentially no influence at all. The farther from the people you go, the less individual people get to decide for themselves and the more things are decided by whoever gets the most political favoritism. Since he shows no interest in moving decision-making power back toward the people themselves, I conclude that he's not unhappy that people (as individuals) don't have enough power over their own lives; he's unhappy that the system he and his Harvard friends have built for the elite to rule The People (as a mass) doesn't yet have as much unrestrained power to do so as they would like.
- chad_oliver 14y ago
  The problem is that you're making an ideological statement. You may well be totally correct, but it's also possible for someone to disagree that decentralisation is good, while still supporting the same end-goals as you. As a small example, I actually think that USA would be better off if you had a much stronger federal government and reduced the states to minor importance. However, my opinion doesn't count much because I live in New Zealand!
- rayiner 14y ago
  The problem with this theory is that it is entirely not borne out in practice. Local governments are generally far more corrupt and dysfunctional than the federal government. See, e.g., San Francisco.
  - dllthomas 14y ago
    Or Bell, CA! Or Detroit, Chicago... ... and those are just some obvious ones.
    - 14y ago
spoiledtechie 14y ago
I adore, that's right Adore Lessig for his work against this corrupt thing we call a government. I suggest many more folks get behind this man. The thing that turned me on to him was his Google Talk about political finance. Lessig will be considered one of the greats when we look back on this generation and ask our selves what they did. He in fact will be known as the man who struck at the very Root of our so called Republic. If your not following him, or know nothing about him, I would extremely and utterly suggest you take the hour and watch his Google Talk. He knows corruption and he has my dedication.
trotsky 14y ago
The huge amounts spent on campaigns are merely the result of the ruling class having optimized the equation of how to get your guys in office. If you somehow totally eliminated the role of money in campaigns, the next most efficient solution would be found - be it control of the media, procedural changes, slash and burn smear campaigns, whatever. Voting via net worth is just the easy equilibrium we found.
cletus 14y ago
From the start it seems Lessig is attacking the symptom rather than the cause. The problem with the US government is a tragedy of the commons (ie the district-by-district and state-by-state pork barrelling). The original intent of the Founding Fathers and the view held by libertarians and traditional conservatives (rather than the neoconservatives and religious conservatives that dominate today) is one of limited Federal government for specifically this reason. A minimal government is one not worth buying. A big and intrusive government is one totally worth buying. Representatives and Senators raise so much money to get elected because the payoff is huge. Both in terms of direct power and the indirect financial reward (many become lobbyists for huge incomes). Lobbying isn't the problem; it's a symptom (of government being worth buying). Davy Crockett [1] is oft-quoted on this subject. This is why I found the "living document" "ideology" so subversive. I say "ideology" because I find myself agreeing with Justice Scalia that it is no ideology at all. The Constitution doesn't say whatever you want it to say. It says what it says. If you want pass laws or amendments otherwise well there are processes for that and it's the job of the legislative not the judicial branch to create new law. The road to hell is paved with good intentions. I think the bigger problem in US politics is that the country itself is divided and so many people think the means justify the ends. Take how elections are organized. It's clear that some states seek to suppress traditionally Democratic votes in the names of striking convicted felons off the electoral rolls. Other states try and manipulate the vote by the density of polling places and the hours they are open. I compare this to Australia, which holds elections on a Saturday, and those elections are organized by the AEC (Australian Electoral Commission). Voting is mandatory not optional and the duty of the AEC is to ensure that everyone has ample opportunity to vote. It seems that some combination of cultural factors, the smaller size of the Australian population and mandatory voting has made this a largely nonpartisan endeavour and voting has only ever taken me 10 minutes. On Saturdays they just set up in schools and other public spaces. Redistricting too is a hugely political issue but the big problem here is that voting patterns are so predictable that you can buy maps telling you how specific city blocks vote. Half the country votes. Of that half, 40% always vote Republican. 40% always vote Democrat. The remaining 20% (meaning 10% of the population) actually determinate the outcome of the election. The largest electoral victories in US history (Nixon in '72 and Reagan in '84) each only captured ~60% of the populate vote. You see the effects of this on Congress with reelection rates [2]. Being a Representative is now a career and that (IMHO) is a problem. "Winning" on issues for many has trumped the rule of law and the Republic itself (again, IMHO) and that more than anything is the most dangerous thing. [1]: http://www.freerepublic.com/focus/f-news/1221671/posts http://www.freerepublic.com/focus/f-news/1221671/posts [2]: http://www.opensecrets.org/bigpicture/reelect.php http://www.opensecrets.org/bigpicture/reelect.php
ninetenel 14y ago
It could be worse, I do think that if people spent a bit more of their time thinking about they would like to change locally rather then nationally (which is also important) they would feel much less disenfranchised .. but that plays less into various ideological world views and such which people tend to fixate on

207 points by jv22222 14y ago

It would be fun to gather metrics about fund-raising quotas, funds raised, time spent, etc, per elected official. But, that information belongs to parties, not to the people.

jacoblyles 14y ago

And as someone who supports primarily insurgent candidates from outside the mainstream, the Citizens United decision was a godsend. There is no better way to enshrine the status quo for eternity than limiting outside fundraising. Lessig keeps pounding this drum, but Washington corruption goes a lot deeper than campaigns. Who do your representatives talk to every month? Who does their research for them? Who is a big fish in their home communities? I don't know what the right policy is to address Washington inside dealing. But lets not pretend that limiting campaign money (thereby gutting independent campaigns) is the answer.

chalst 14y ago
> thereby gutting independent campaigns I think you need to explain this. Two considerations: 1. In other countries, independent campaigns with little financial backing have had success. The need for very large amounts of money to win elections seems to be distinctive of the US. 2. The independents with such money are "independent" Lesters, in Lessig's terminology (i.e., they are people with enough money to influence elections). So you are using the word independent in a way that seems to show that you are not talking about the same problem.
- mayneack 14y ago
  An incumbent is already well known. People are willing to give them money and put them on TV because they are already a congressman. A challenger has to have enough money to be taken seriously or pay to get attention via ads etc. I would search for some citations if I wasn't about to get noprocrasted out.
mayneack 14y ago
I would recommend reading Lessig's book Republic Lost [1], it's very short and is very quick to discuss that "getting money out" is not the only thing that matters. To your point, you're right that restricting money is often worse for challengers than incumbents. This is because the challengers need to spend money to get their name out and prove they're "serious" as opposed to the incumbents who already have name recognition and can get attention without spending money. However, the issue that he's talking about is different (though related). The problem is that both incumbents and challengers require some small subset of people to support them and fund them. http://www.amazon.com/Republic-Lost-Money-Corrupts-Congress/dp/0446576433 http://www.amazon.com/Republic-Lost-Money-Corrupts-Congress/...
1123581321 14y ago
Republic, Lost has some excellent proposals of methods to reform campaign finance in ways that do not shut out independence.
apendleton 14y ago
But when you say "independent campaigns," what you're really talking about is "independent campaigns that happen to attract the attention of very rich people." Most would-be independent candidates don't get that, and are consequently unable to compete against the candidates (independent or otherwise) who do attract high-dollar donors. There's an undeniable bias in which candidates ultimately get selected as a consequence. If that bias favors the kinds of insurgent candidates you tend to favor, lucky for you I guess, but I'm not sure how that supports the argument that this is good for democratic processes generally.
- jacoblyles 14y ago
  I'm talking about Ron Paul, Rand Paul, and Justin Amash, really. Along with a dozen or so other guys that didn't win. It has always been legal for very rich people like Mitt Romney to spend their own money on campaigns. McCain-Feingold didn't hurt them, it hurt guys like Ron Paul in 2007. We had tens of thousands of people ready to chip in $10k or more, but they were limited to $3k by the law.
justin66 14y ago
> There is no better way to enshrine the status quo for eternity than limiting outside fundraising. You state this as if it's obvious. It really isn't. The conventional campaign finance reform thinking, which a lot of us agree with, is that campaign money subverts the normal democratic process wherein people make their voices heard, their representative does what they want, and if they don't the people vote in someone who seems more likely to do the job. You seem to be saying that in the absence of campaign money, nothing will happen at all. That can't be what you actually mean?
- snowwrestler 14y ago
  The fundamental problem in running a challenger's campaign is that the incumbent is a lawmaker whose every action is covered by the news media. Incumbents have a HUGE built-in publicity advantage; the only way a challenger can counter that is by spending money on ads and events. The secondary problem in today's U.S. election system is that the 2 largest political parties have baked all sorts of advantages for themselves into the law--for example, for a long time party committees were allowed to collect and spend a lot more money than independent committees. Citizens United did away with this distorting advantage, making it easier for people to organize support for challenger candidates outside of political parties.
  - justin66 14y ago
    > Incumbents have a HUGE built-in publicity advantage This isn't true 100% of the time. In recent years people have been pretty eager to vote out incumbents, in some cases in favor of people who can barely speak in complete sentences... > the only way a challenger can counter that is by spending money on ads and events. There's also the press. That last bit is interesting, thanks. edit: I remain amused at what people will downvote
    - nitrogen 14y ago
      If it's just one downvote, it could've been a misplaced finger on a phone touchscreen.
caseysoftware 14y ago
It cracks me up that people believe that money is the only way to influence legislators. How many congressmen have kids, siblings, spouses, mistresses who work for companies in their districts? How many Senators have golden parachutes into the private sector after leaving? How many politicians, advisors, etc have book deals, speaking tours, etc.. which happen to be announced right after (days) their retirement? And that's not even including the fact that Congress' staffs and spouses are not covered by insider trading rules: http://www.cnn.com/2012/07/19/politics/stock-act-loophole http://www.cnn.com/2012/07/19/politics/stock-act-loophole
- wwweston 14y ago
  > It cracks me up that people believe that money is the only way to influence legislators. Not only that, but there's an overemphasis on the idea that donations are an implicit quid pro quo exchange for policy. Let's say we could somehow ban any kind of "exchange" -- not just donations, but these other soft influence deals where money doesn't change hands directly. We'd still have a fundamental problem: people who have lots of money can hire other people to represent their interests to congress. Conversely, how many citizens spend time trying to influence their congressional offices? Not just via vote, not just via the occasional phone call or letter, but by actually meeting with congressional staff.
  - leot 14y ago
    Merely because a problem can't be completely solved doesn't mean efforts to mitigate it are futile.
    - wwweston 14y ago
      I don't mean to suggest that at all -- I think there are a variety of things we could try to mitigate some of the problems associated with campaign finance. What I'm trying to communicate is mostly that when it comes to "buying influence", the problem is a lot deeper than any access/influence purchased via donor-driven fundraising. It's actually inherent in any arrangement where money can be used to hire people to lobby on an employer's behalf. And it's particularly unbalanced when most people don't lobby on a volunteer basis.
cabalamat 14y ago
> And as someone who supports primarily insurgent candidates from outside the mainstream, the Citizens United decision was a godsend. If you want non-mainstream candidates to get elected, wouldn't it make more sense to support proportional representation?

walshemj 14y ago

1 Switching to having proper parties with members and using OMOV one member one vote and doing away totally with the primary system and saving all that money would be a better start. 2 Have strict limits on campaign costs and have public service party political broadcasts carried on the major tv channels. 3 Remove all patronage civil service jobs from the president no nice jollies as ambassador for your buddies. 4 Implement better rules of debate no more slipping pork in as an unrelated rider. 5 Have independent speakers of house and congress. Rather than some half assed version of what you have now.

deleted 14y ago
[deleted]

kzrdude 14y ago

He began with copyright reform, and ended up here when he realized the broader underlying problems with trying to have sensible reform in washington.

Symmetry 14y ago
The real underlying problem, though, is that pretty much the only people who are going to change who they vote for in an election based on copyright reform are the people who feel their livelihoods depend on the current system.

curtis 14y ago

The way we fund campaigns in this country is definitely a big, big problem, but I don't think it's the only one. Many big donors are not driven so much by self-interest as the are by ideology, and in the "second" election, many voters vote based on prejudice rather than their own self-interest. I'm sure this situation has always been true, but it's much more extreme than it used to be. As a supporting point, I'd argue that the current impasse over the budget doesn't actually serve anyone's financial interests (wealthy or otherwise), although it may serve some people's ideological interests.

mayneack 14y ago
The impasse of the budget doesn't necessarily need to server anyone's interests. It just has to be enough better than the opposition's proposal to lead to a stalemate. If there's no policy that both the Senate and House prefer to the status quo, we get the status quo, even if both sides oppose the status quo.
protomyth 14y ago
The current impasse on the budget actually serves quite a few peoples interest. Sadly, it is seen as a conflict that both sides think will help them in the next election. Neither side actually wants to make hard cuts (Ryan's budget actually increases federal spending).

javert 14y ago

This is an absolutely vicious attack on free speech.

olefoo 14y ago
Unless money and speech are exactly the same thing; it's not.
- protomyth 14y ago
  What is the difference between the money and lobbying of California Prison employees and some PAC? Money is speech. No money, then you have no distribution for speech. It has always been this way. Now party bosses cannot dictate every primary.
Anechoic 14y ago
Downvoters, this is something to consider. I'm no fan of money in politics, but I have a real difficult time trying to figure out how to get money out of elections without stifling the ability of folks (rich or otherwise) to advocate for their issues.
- justin66 14y ago
  Call your congressman, go to her office, etc. etc. All the stuff people who don't have the ability to write a huge check do already.
  - Anechoic 14y ago
    Call your congressman, go to her office, etc. But what if I'm trying to advocate to citizens rather than to my congresscritter?
- diego_moita 14y ago
  There is a way of doing it, it is called "maximum allowed contribution". A lot of civilized countries have it.

ereckers 14y ago

There's a sentence in the 3rd paragraph talking about what people are calling, "money in politics". He says, "They therefore don't point us to a plausible solution to the problem of our political system today.". I figured I'd read through the article to get the solution. This is how it ends, "We need to find a way back to Madison's original design, so that we can find a way to restore again a government that works. Leaving Lesterland is the critical first step." Thanks Mr. Lessig.

xal 14y ago
Watch the video. He endorses many different plans which tackle the same issue. This is not a new idea - he is just ratcheting up the urgency and quite successfully so: "There are a thousand hacking at the branches of evil to one who is striking at the root." - Henry David Thoreau Lessig endorses the idea that this is the root issue of modern (US) times.

drostie 14y ago

The US problem is actually a perfect storm formed by the collision of at least two smaller storms that each forms its own problems. Combined together they self-reinforce and make the system worse. The first storm is what Lessig mentioned: simply getting the money or in-party approval to be on the ballot and run the necessary ads. If your first promises have to be directed towards any group of "Lesters", e.g. the exceedingly wealthy, then you're starting off on a bad foot. The second storm is that the Framers of the Constitution set up our system to vote for individual politicians in individual seats by first-past-the-post voting. This has been elegantly covered by C.G.P. Grey in this video: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=s7tWHJfhiyo https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=s7tWHJfhiyo . The problem here is that we have a two-party system in the first place, because that is a fixed point of the voting process and the system converges to its fixed point over iterated voting. Just to see why this is one of The Big Problems, a fillibuster rule would actually make sense if we had, say, 4-5 parties occupying the Senate. It would say that you need a 60% majority if some of the minority parties were so strongly opposed to the idea they'd filibuster it; in effect you can force the status quo with only a 40% vote, which allows a sort of "minority coalition" to come together on really hot-topic matters. This really gives a great deal more voice to minority parties than is seen in normal coalition governments.

JoshTriplett 14y ago
> The second storm is that the Framers of the Constitution set up our system to vote for individual politicians in individual seats by first-past-the-post voting. > The problem here is that we have a two-party system in the first place, because that is a fixed point of the voting process and the system converges to its fixed point over iterated voting. For more details on this: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Duverger%27s_law https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Duverger%27s_law "plurality rule elections structured within single-member districts tends to favor a two-party system" We could fix so many problems with a sane voting system, but it remains one of the most difficult things to change. Between the current system having elected everyone in a position to change it, the public perception of "one person one vote" as the most fair rather than one of the worst systems in common use, and the most popular alternative system being one of the only worse ones, I don't know if we'll ever manage to move to a better system on any large scale.

notatoad 14y ago

From a nearby foreigner's perspective, the strangest thing about US politics to me is the prominence of elections. It's a never-ending media spectacle that candidates have to participate in. The problem isn't the way campaigns are funded, it's how much funding a campaign actually needs. It is obscene that it is even possible to spend so much money campaigning. I look back to the last federal election here in Canada - it was triggered by a vote of no-confidence over the budget, and 5 weeks later the whole process was done. the candidates only had 5 weeks to spend money. no matter how much money you are legally allowed to donate to a campaign, the candidate can only spend so much in such a small time frame. It doesn't matter if you're a billionaire or not, it's impossible to garner much influence when the campaign period is so short. of course, our voter turnout is miserable and the guy we managed to elect is pretty terrible, i'm not trying to say our system is perfect. but the year-and-a-half long campaign with elections every two years just seems so ridiculous.

saraid216 14y ago
I wonder if it's our competitiveness. We're more interested in winning a seat than we are in using that seat.
draggnar 14y ago
The campaigns do have that much to spend, and the available advertising dollars makes incentives for media companies to fulfill that demand. Profit is made by getting more eyeballs watching, just like a sport. This past election had nearly $2b between the two of them. Toyota spends less than $2b a year on advertising in total. It just seems that the voices of a very, very small group of people who want to keep everything stalemated are drowning out the voices of reason that can push our society forward.

jarrett 14y ago

The free speech issues here should not be underestimated. It's true that money and speech are not identical. But we must consider the right to spend money broadcasting one's speech. For example, what if I'm allowed to speak about patent reform, but I'm forbidden to make a documentary about, simply because that documentary will cost a certain amount of money? We need to consider these kinds of scenarios when we talk about any restrictions on money in politics. I do think there's a proper balance to be struck. My point is just that it's not as easy as saying "money is not speech."

moultano 14y ago
That's what's clever about his proposal. You get matching funds from the government if you accept limitations on the contributions you receive.
- dantheman 14y ago
  But what if I, an individual, do not want one of the candidates to win. I should be able to do anything in my power to cause them to lose - write books, op-eds, documentaries, commercials etc. Additionally, what limits do we put on newspapers, famous people, unions, employees, news programs? "In the final week of the 2012 election, MSNBC ran no negative stories about President Barack Obama and no positive stories about Republican nominee Mitt Romney, according to a study released Monday by the Pew Research Center's Project for Excellence in Journalism. "[1] It seems that any restriction starts to favor certain groups. For instance, unions organizing volunteers "The A.F.L.-C.I.O.’s president, Richard Trumka, said on Thursday that the nation’s labor unions would have 128,000 volunteers working on the “final four days” of the 2012 campaign, saying these volunteers would knock on 5.5 million doors and make 5.2 million phone calls." [2] [1] http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2012/11/21/msnbc-obama-coverage_n_2170065.html http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2012/11/21/msnbc-obama-coverag... [2] http://thecaucus.blogs.nytimes.com/2012/11/01/labor-unions-to-have-128000-campaign-volunteers/ http://thecaucus.blogs.nytimes.com/2012/11/01/labor-unions-t...
  - rayiner 14y ago

InclinedPlane 14y ago

I'd disagree, I'd say these are not the underlying problem, they're symptoms. The underlying problem is the disengagement of the electorate and the horrible process of running a campaign. There are lots of reasons for those things but if you want one big villain to point a finger at, then it should be the media. The media have turned elections into a scandal-driven celebrity-driven mess, almost completely divorced from the issues. Sane people avoid running for office partly because of the horrible negative impact the media will have on their lives. And then you get a process where good candidates are actively driven away early and where nothing of substance is seriously discussed in the media. And we wonder why the system is full of narcissistic glory seekers who think they can get away with anything.

wvenable 14y ago
What you're saying is the underlying problem is human nature. I could agree with that. But you are not going to change human nature.
- InclinedPlane 14y ago
  Hardly. What I'm describing is a dynamics problem. Right now we are at one equilibrium point due to various factors, many of them related to the particular nature of the popular media today. However, there are other equilibrium points (many of them more desirable) which are within our reach if certain changes happen.
  - wvenable 14y ago
    The media reflects human desire. Elections are a scandal-driven celebrity-driven mess because that's what people watch. This is not unique to our time in human history either. But, like all things these days, media so much more efficient, centralized, and responsive.
    - InclinedPlane 14y ago
      That's a simplistic way of looking at it, and it's not entirely untrue, but it's also not the whole truth. The media represents a reflection of human desire filtered and lensed through the particular business models and technological limitations that reign. And the distortion that has been caused by those things, especially ad driven broadcast media, has had a huge impact. I don't excuse the electorate their responsibility in this either but the impact that the media has had on the process has been enormous and in most ways largely negative, especially over the last half century or so. As technology changes, as business models change, as expectations change we may see some big differences in the interface between candidate campgaigns and the electorate but it's too soon to tell how all that will shake out and whether it will lead to an improvement or worsening in matters.

white_devil 14y ago

Now, the next step would be to realize that the underlying problem here is the existence of Government itself. It's an arrangement where a small group of people: - Is in a position to accept bribes in exchange for influence. - Decides everything for 300 million *individuals*. - Uses other people's money (or conjures more out of thin air). - Is not responsible for their actions. What could possibly go wrong?

jellicle 14y ago
Good idea. The U.S. should emulate governmentless Somalia, because it has worked so well.
- white_devil 14y ago
  Ah yes, the classic Somalia-strawman.
  - jellicle 14y ago
    You seem confused. Arguing against a strawman involves describing an opponent's argument falsely and then attacking it. In this case you, who are apparently an extreme idiot, have written a diatribe saying that the "underlying problem here is the existence of Government itself." It is not, in fact, a strawman to describe your argument as being for the dissolution of the U.S. Government entirely, and currently Somalia is well-known for the absence of any effective government.
    - white_devil 14y ago
      Somalia is often trotted out as some kind of pseudo-argument against anarchism, as if it were an example of what would happen without a government. I can see at least a couple of problems with that: - Somalia has a government, regadless of how "effective" it is, and that alone makes it an invalid comparison. - The absence of government means the absence of coercion, and that everything would be based on voluntary trade. It does not automatically follow that every place without a government would be a hellish shithole. That soup requires other ingredients besides "no government-controlled police force". > You seem confused. Arguing against a strawman involves describing an opponent's argument falsely and then attacking it. - I pointed out that the existence of Government is a problem. - You implied I was advocating emulating Somalia (originally calling it "governmentless", but now covering your ass by adding "effective"). "Strawman" seems appropriate. Who was the idiot again?

kevinpet 14y ago

I flagged this article. "Off Topic: Most stories about politics, or crime, or sports, unless they're evidence of some interesting new phenomenon." Lessig's geek-relevant copyright background does not magically make his every political opinion relevant. There's nothing in the article or the comments about technology or intellectual property (or anything else that would make this relevant).

wahsd 14y ago

Unfortunately, although that is a quite obvious to those who pay attention, it is also just the tip of the iceberg in the events that led to the sinking of the titanic. The point is that, obviously the visible tip of the iceberg is the most obvious danger, the real, immediate danger is the portion of the iceberg just below the surface of the water. But that is also just the most shallow consideration of all the factors and events that ended up with the sinking of the titanic. Events and circumstances that were in place before the impact, and those revealed and as a consequence of the impact. For example, a huge part of the corruption of our government comes from Congress' micro-management of the economy, which should not be happening. The legislature is supposed to put broad, systemic foundations into place that work universally, not this inept and incompetent meddling in the smallest details of how a dime is spent or not spent. That body of our government lacks universal principles that can be tested against to validate their actions. That manifests itself in the blatant, overt corruption of bribery and favoritism; not to even touch on the subtle forms of corruption which make up the forest we can't see for all the trees. addendum: Something else that is a rather touchy subject but also a relevant one is that we are operating with a hobbled-together framework that was meant for a whole different era of humanity. Universal suffrage in its current state is corrosive and inadequate. There really need to be qualifications for voting and the power and influence through access of the legislative and executive should solely rest in those who qualify. Now, before you get all upset; it should be a qualification that is universally accessible, e.g., spending time rather than money. Everyone has a more equitable amount of time available for themselves. Some poor will find it difficult to find the time to spend, but so will the wealthy who, e.g., have no interest in putting in time spent with the poor in community forums and colloquium, i.e., the more time you spend attending and participating in public discussions across all economic and political spectrum the more access you have to legislators and the executive. It's fair, its universal, and it's equitable; which is why the wealthy and those who have perverted the current system in their overwhelming favor will vilify and fight dirty to the death to preserve the current con job they have going.

rayiner 14y ago

I have a couple of reactions to this, none of them positive: 1) Calling Washington corrupt devalues the word "corrupt." Dhaka is corrupt. Moscow is corrupt. Washington is dysfunctional, but not corrupt. Americans couldn't even process what an actually corrupt government would look like. They have no frame of reference. There is an important reason to not throw the word "corrupt" around willy nilly. If you convince Americans that this is as bad as it gets, they will become apathetic. After all, what's the point of doing anything if the government is already in such a huge hole there is no climbing out? Overplaying the "corruptness" of Washington draws eyeballs, but it ultimately undermines your overall goal. 2) Blaming money is a diversion. Talking about how "money corrupts the political system" ignores the problem. And the problem is this: the people agree with the corporations. On nearly any substantial political issue you'd like to name, there is not just money but votes on the pro-corporate side. If you want to shut down heavily-polluting and destructive coal power in this country, you have to fight not just the corporations, but all of the people for whom coal is a way of life. When Obama and Romney got on stage during the last debate to see who could get the coal industry's dick the deepest down their throat, they didn't do it because of the money the coal industry donated to their campaigns.[1] They did it because ordinary Pennsylvanians,[2] treat attacks on the coal industry as an attack on their livelihoods and their way of life. If you want to break up or regulate big corporations, you can find plenty of ordinary people to say: "the government shouldn't be messing with those businesses." The only things that attract broad political opposition are things that don't matter (e.g. "earmarks" which account for approximately 0% of the budget). The only things that attract universal condemnation are wiggle-words like "corruption" and "pork" and "wasteful spending" on which everyone can project their own viewpoint and still act like they are in agreement with everyone else. Lessig goes wrong from the very first sentence of this article: "We Americans are disgusted with our government." The basic issue is that people aren't discontent with our government. Sure they have a general distaste for it in the same way they have a general distaste for going to the dentist, but if you sit down and really look at the issues, the big questions of governance, there is no collective consensus about doing anything important differently. Bigger military or smaller military? Tougher on crime or more protective of individual rights? Less religion in the public sphere or more? More taxes or less taxes? More privatization or less privatization? More regulation or less regulation? If you get out of Boston or San Francisco, you can find tons of ordinary people around you to take either side of each of these debates. What you can't find much if any of are substantial, meaningful issues that everyone agrees should be changed, in a specific way, but which are nonetheless held to the status quo by our "corrupt" government. That is real corruption. [1] People dramatically overestimate how much money corporations actually give out. First, it's illegal for corporations to donate directly to candidates. Second, both Obama and Romney raised more direct contributions than the amount of money spent on their behalf by PAC's and non-profit organizations. And direct contributions can and are limited and not affected by Citizens United. [2] And Pennsylvanians are really important! There is a joke: why did God put all of our oil under Saudi Arabia? Well, god put all of our swing votes in Pennsylvania, Ohio, Iowa, etc.

SiVal 14y ago

If Larry really wanted to fight government corruption, he would be campaigning to reverse the centralization of government decision-making power in Washington bureaucrats, returning it to as close as possible to the people who are governed. The people have the most influence over decisions they make for themselves, and less and less as the decision-making power moves to the local community, then to the state, then the elected feds, and by the time you reach the unelected federal bureaucrats, the people have essentially no influence at all. The farther from the people you go, the less individual people get to decide for themselves and the more things are decided by whoever gets the most political favoritism. Since he shows no interest in moving decision-making power back toward the people themselves, I conclude that he's not unhappy that people (as individuals) don't have enough power over their own lives; he's unhappy that the system he and his Harvard friends have built for the elite to rule The People (as a mass) doesn't yet have as much unrestrained power to do so as they would like.

chad_oliver 14y ago
The problem is that you're making an ideological statement. You may well be totally correct, but it's also possible for someone to disagree that decentralisation is good, while still supporting the same end-goals as you. As a small example, I actually think that USA would be better off if you had a much stronger federal government and reduced the states to minor importance. However, my opinion doesn't count much because I live in New Zealand!
rayiner 14y ago
The problem with this theory is that it is entirely not borne out in practice. Local governments are generally far more corrupt and dysfunctional than the federal government. See, e.g., San Francisco.
- dllthomas 14y ago
  Or Bell, CA! Or Detroit, Chicago... ... and those are just some obvious ones.
  - 14y ago

spoiledtechie 14y ago

I adore, that's right Adore Lessig for his work against this corrupt thing we call a government. I suggest many more folks get behind this man. The thing that turned me on to him was his Google Talk about political finance. Lessig will be considered one of the greats when we look back on this generation and ask our selves what they did. He in fact will be known as the man who struck at the very Root of our so called Republic. If your not following him, or know nothing about him, I would extremely and utterly suggest you take the hour and watch his Google Talk. He knows corruption and he has my dedication.

trotsky 14y ago

The huge amounts spent on campaigns are merely the result of the ruling class having optimized the equation of how to get your guys in office. If you somehow totally eliminated the role of money in campaigns, the next most efficient solution would be found - be it control of the media, procedural changes, slash and burn smear campaigns, whatever. Voting via net worth is just the easy equilibrium we found.

cletus 14y ago

From the start it seems Lessig is attacking the symptom rather than the cause. The problem with the US government is a tragedy of the commons (ie the district-by-district and state-by-state pork barrelling). The original intent of the Founding Fathers and the view held by libertarians and traditional conservatives (rather than the neoconservatives and religious conservatives that dominate today) is one of limited Federal government for specifically this reason. A minimal government is one not worth buying. A big and intrusive government is one totally worth buying. Representatives and Senators raise so much money to get elected because the payoff is huge. Both in terms of direct power and the indirect financial reward (many become lobbyists for huge incomes). Lobbying isn't the problem; it's a symptom (of government being worth buying). Davy Crockett [1] is oft-quoted on this subject. This is why I found the "living document" "ideology" so subversive. I say "ideology" because I find myself agreeing with Justice Scalia that it is no ideology at all. The Constitution doesn't say whatever you want it to say. It says what it says. If you want pass laws or amendments otherwise well there are processes for that and it's the job of the legislative not the judicial branch to create new law. The road to hell is paved with good intentions. I think the bigger problem in US politics is that the country itself is divided and so many people think the means justify the ends. Take how elections are organized. It's clear that some states seek to suppress traditionally Democratic votes in the names of striking convicted felons off the electoral rolls. Other states try and manipulate the vote by the density of polling places and the hours they are open. I compare this to Australia, which holds elections on a Saturday, and those elections are organized by the AEC (Australian Electoral Commission). Voting is mandatory not optional and the duty of the AEC is to ensure that everyone has ample opportunity to vote. It seems that some combination of cultural factors, the smaller size of the Australian population and mandatory voting has made this a largely nonpartisan endeavour and voting has only ever taken me 10 minutes. On Saturdays they just set up in schools and other public spaces. Redistricting too is a hugely political issue but the big problem here is that voting patterns are so predictable that you can buy maps telling you how specific city blocks vote. Half the country votes. Of that half, 40% always vote Republican. 40% always vote Democrat. The remaining 20% (meaning 10% of the population) actually determinate the outcome of the election. The largest electoral victories in US history (Nixon in '72 and Reagan in '84) each only captured ~60% of the populate vote. You see the effects of this on Congress with reelection rates [2]. Being a Representative is now a career and that (IMHO) is a problem. "Winning" on issues for many has trumped the rule of law and the Republic itself (again, IMHO) and that more than anything is the most dangerous thing. [1]: http://www.freerepublic.com/focus/f-news/1221671/posts http://www.freerepublic.com/focus/f-news/1221671/posts [2]: http://www.opensecrets.org/bigpicture/reelect.php http://www.opensecrets.org/bigpicture/reelect.php

ninetenel 14y ago

It could be worse, I do think that if people spent a bit more of their time thinking about they would like to change locally rather then nationally (which is also important) they would feel much less disenfranchised .. but that plays less into various ideological world views and such which people tend to fixate on