5 ms·

Larry Lessig’s Long Walk

115 points by steven 12y ago

hoggle 12y ago
I remember when I first heard about Lessig and his efforts regarding Copyleft at the university of technology here in Vienna, that was almost a decade ago - glad to read that he's still advancing even further, trying to change things for the better. A brilliant man and important role-model not only for people in computer science or law.
nraynaud 12y ago
I'm wondering what his take on the French system is. Basically, there is a limit on how much candidates can spend, and the State refunds the candidate (on certified expense report) if a certain score is reached during the vote. Getting money from a corporation is an offense, spending too much is an offense, cooking the books is an offense, getting undeclared money is an offense.
- dantheman 12y ago
  Money is normally, needed by challengers - incumbents have a lot of advantageous including notoriety. If anything the US should make laws to enhance the challengers, not solidify incumbents.
  - rtpg 12y ago
    just by the way, you get your funding refunded at about 5% of the vote, so it's not like the challengers have little access to the funding.
- hornetblack 12y ago
  In Australia the Party doesn't have a limit on funding. But all funding must be declared. The government will cover the campaign funding for their portion of the primary vote. So even if you live in a safe Liberal seat. Voting for the Greens will still get the Greens some campaign money for next election.
- snowwrestler 12y ago
  > Getting money from a corporation is an offense, spending too much is an offense, cooking the books is an offense, getting undeclared money is an offense. FYI, the only one of those that is not a federal offense in the U.S. is spending too much.
- heydenberk 12y ago
  I don't think anyone struggles to imagine how a better system would work. The issue is that the current Supreme Court has set strict limits on the legal regulation of campaign finance, so there are few straightforward paths to reform.
- sylvinus 12y ago
  I talked with him a couple days ago and while I didn't ask about France specifically, he basically said that "corruption" can take different forms overseas, depending on the system in place there are always indirect ways for money to exert influence. (and ways to fight it!)
dantheman 12y ago
Larry Lessig's approach is fundamentally misguided: 1. It increases complexity and discourages participation in the election system - campaign finance regulations are anti-free speech. 2. It treats the symptom, not the problem. The symptom is that people will spend a lot to get people important to them into office. The problem is that the government controls so much money and so many things, that it is in your best interest to try influence it so that 1. the money comes to you and 2. the laws and regulations favor you. 3. The centralization of power at the Federal level exacerbates this problem, since there is one main body that you are trying to influence instead of lots of smaller ones.
- xorcist 12y ago
  It's not immediately clear what your answer to number 2 is, except less power for the government. Is it to let these people who spend this money govern directly instead?
  - dantheman 12y ago
    There are many approaches: 1. Reducing the scope of government 2. Push governance down instead of centralizing, do more at the local and state level 3. Develop quasi independent institutions to carry out certain tasks and allow competition between them.
    - c0ur7n3y 12y ago
      Those are great ideas. You can't accomplish any of those things until campaign finance reform is enacted.
- jval 12y ago
  1. Is money really speech? If so then there's a lot of laws that need to be overturned. Not to mention you can't hold 'free speech' up as a sword to swat away anything that affects speech (libel? slander? copyright violations?). The idea of a constitutionally protected right to free speech is to stop the government from silencing debate. But limiting people from handing money to members of congress isn't stopping your ability to voice your opinion at all, it's just limiting your ability to influence your member of congress by donating more money than the next guy. If anything it increases freedom of speech - it allows all people to voice their views in a marketplace of ideas where the amount of money in their bank accounts is irrelevant, and they are assessed on the merits of their arguments alone. The current situation allows every person to speak, but one person to hold a megaphone. 2. The problem you've identified is the fact that there is a government, or that powerful people exist. There will always be powerful people, and hopefully there will always be government, and it will always be in your interests to influence those powerful people so that they can help you out. So in any system where there is a government, there needs to be a robust system of checks and balances to ensure that representatives act in the interests of the public (which is the idea behind representative democracy) rather than the interests of their private funders. 3. Yes, of course it does, but again, that is just a symptom of checks and balances failing. In a system where there is a perfect representative democracy and a strong constitution, the people will never vote for a federal government larger than it needs to be. In the system we have now, the federal government swells in size no matter which party is in government (just depends whether it is the public service, or the military that grows). Private interests fuel this effect and governments wave their hands to make it look like cuts are being made, but they're not. Lessig has nailed the arguments around why campaign finance reform is necessary - whether he's going to be successful is in question but I think most legal experts can see that the system is broken, with money being the core of the problem.
mceoin 12y ago
Is anyone planning to walk?
- soroushjp 12y ago
  Seriously considering buying a ticket to NH right now for the walk

115 points by steven 12y ago

I remember when I first heard about Lessig and his efforts regarding Copyleft at the university of technology here in Vienna, that was almost a decade ago - glad to read that he's still advancing even further, trying to change things for the better. A brilliant man and important role-model not only for people in computer science or law.

nraynaud 12y ago

I'm wondering what his take on the French system is. Basically, there is a limit on how much candidates can spend, and the State refunds the candidate (on certified expense report) if a certain score is reached during the vote. Getting money from a corporation is an offense, spending too much is an offense, cooking the books is an offense, getting undeclared money is an offense.

dantheman 12y ago
Money is normally, needed by challengers - incumbents have a lot of advantageous including notoriety. If anything the US should make laws to enhance the challengers, not solidify incumbents.
- rtpg 12y ago
  just by the way, you get your funding refunded at about 5% of the vote, so it's not like the challengers have little access to the funding.
hornetblack 12y ago
In Australia the Party doesn't have a limit on funding. But all funding must be declared. The government will cover the campaign funding for their portion of the primary vote. So even if you live in a safe Liberal seat. Voting for the Greens will still get the Greens some campaign money for next election.
snowwrestler 12y ago
> Getting money from a corporation is an offense, spending too much is an offense, cooking the books is an offense, getting undeclared money is an offense. FYI, the only one of those that is not a federal offense in the U.S. is spending too much.
heydenberk 12y ago
I don't think anyone struggles to imagine how a better system would work. The issue is that the current Supreme Court has set strict limits on the legal regulation of campaign finance, so there are few straightforward paths to reform.
sylvinus 12y ago
I talked with him a couple days ago and while I didn't ask about France specifically, he basically said that "corruption" can take different forms overseas, depending on the system in place there are always indirect ways for money to exert influence. (and ways to fight it!)

dantheman 12y ago

Larry Lessig's approach is fundamentally misguided: 1. It increases complexity and discourages participation in the election system - campaign finance regulations are anti-free speech. 2. It treats the symptom, not the problem. The symptom is that people will spend a lot to get people important to them into office. The problem is that the government controls so much money and so many things, that it is in your best interest to try influence it so that 1. the money comes to you and 2. the laws and regulations favor you. 3. The centralization of power at the Federal level exacerbates this problem, since there is one main body that you are trying to influence instead of lots of smaller ones.

xorcist 12y ago
It's not immediately clear what your answer to number 2 is, except less power for the government. Is it to let these people who spend this money govern directly instead?
- dantheman 12y ago
  There are many approaches: 1. Reducing the scope of government 2. Push governance down instead of centralizing, do more at the local and state level 3. Develop quasi independent institutions to carry out certain tasks and allow competition between them.
  - c0ur7n3y 12y ago
    Those are great ideas. You can't accomplish any of those things until campaign finance reform is enacted.
jval 12y ago
1. Is money really speech? If so then there's a lot of laws that need to be overturned. Not to mention you can't hold 'free speech' up as a sword to swat away anything that affects speech (libel? slander? copyright violations?). The idea of a constitutionally protected right to free speech is to stop the government from silencing debate. But limiting people from handing money to members of congress isn't stopping your ability to voice your opinion at all, it's just limiting your ability to influence your member of congress by donating more money than the next guy. If anything it increases freedom of speech - it allows all people to voice their views in a marketplace of ideas where the amount of money in their bank accounts is irrelevant, and they are assessed on the merits of their arguments alone. The current situation allows every person to speak, but one person to hold a megaphone. 2. The problem you've identified is the fact that there is a government, or that powerful people exist. There will always be powerful people, and hopefully there will always be government, and it will always be in your interests to influence those powerful people so that they can help you out. So in any system where there is a government, there needs to be a robust system of checks and balances to ensure that representatives act in the interests of the public (which is the idea behind representative democracy) rather than the interests of their private funders. 3. Yes, of course it does, but again, that is just a symptom of checks and balances failing. In a system where there is a perfect representative democracy and a strong constitution, the people will never vote for a federal government larger than it needs to be. In the system we have now, the federal government swells in size no matter which party is in government (just depends whether it is the public service, or the military that grows). Private interests fuel this effect and governments wave their hands to make it look like cuts are being made, but they're not. Lessig has nailed the arguments around why campaign finance reform is necessary - whether he's going to be successful is in question but I think most legal experts can see that the system is broken, with money being the core of the problem.

mceoin 12y ago

Is anyone planning to walk?

soroushjp 12y ago
Seriously considering buying a ticket to NH right now for the walk