Interviews: Ask Lawrence Lessig About His Mayday PAC 308
samzenpus (5) writes "Lawrence Lessig's list of achievements and areas of influence is not small. He's co-founder of the Creative Commons, but it is his Mayday PAC however that has garnered the most attention recently. The crowdfunded "Super PAC to end all Super PACs" was launched in May with the goal of raising money to elect candidates who would pass campaign finance reform. It raised over $1 million in the first 13 days and has the support of some influential people. With the help of matching contributions, Mayday hopes to raise $12 million by the end of June. Lessig has agreed to answer any questions about the PAC that you might have. As usual, ask as many as you'd like, but please, one question per post."
Other similar Efforts (Score:5, Interesting)
Reverting to business-as-usual (Score:5, Interesting)
So best case scenario is that you lobby away PAC money in the next election cycle. Once you have reached your goal, what do you think is going to prevent lawmakers from finding other loopholes in the laws to do something similar-but-not-equal the cycle after that? As we've seen with FISA/DMCA/... - if they can't do it this year, they'll try and try again until they can get their ways.
In other words, do you think getting rid of PAC's is going to solve anything about corporate money flowing into government. And once you have outlawed the only avenue currently available (a PAC that is run by the people) that can somewhat level the playing field for citizens, what other avenues will there be to fight this corruption?
Political will and patience? (Score:4, Interesting)
Mr. Lessig,
Yours is the first effort I've heard about revamping Government that makes any sense whatsoever. A hearty thank you to you and your staff!
In your estimation, does MaydayPAC have a decades-long plan, to replace as much of Congress as possible, and even reach for the Presidency?
I'm all for it. Even if it takes 30 years.
clarify FAQ on statutory vs. constitutional path (Score:5, Interesting)
Why do you believe statutory reform is necessary, or sufficient to accomplish anything serious? Why do you believe it is a precondition of a constitutional-amendment path?
timing and resource allocation (Score:5, Interesting)
Mr. Lessig, thanks for taking the time.
My question is about timing and resource allocation: With all the problems in America right now, why did you feel that campaign finance reform was the one issue of many (civil rights, immigration, American poverty, health care, etc.) that deserves this huge P.R. and money push now?
Re: (Score:2)
Unions. (Score:5, Insightful)
I was just wondering if you were also concerned about money from unions? To me, a millionaire donating is own money is somehow less problematic than unions taking money from their members to donate. Keep in mind that in many states, union membership is required in order to get the job. Therefore, many union members may find their money being used to support candidates that they do not support.
Re: (Score:2)
Why does everybody treat unions different from any other corporation? They are simply a competing interest in the game of capitalism, but they operate in exactly the same way, with exactly the same style hierarchies. To single out the unions is only taking sides. Attempting to destroy one cartel only assists the others.
Re: (Score:2)
remove the mandatory union membership for jobs, and let the people keep more of their own money and donate it to the candidates they like, rathe
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:3)
Why does everybody treat unions different from any other corporation?
Mostly because they are.
You can be an electrician, and you can work for any number of companies or corporations, but in many places you must belong to the IBEW to work at any of them.
Re: (Score:2)
Keep in mind that in many states, union membership is required in order to get the job
Do you have a citation for that? The only thing I know is that some states allow union-membership to be automatic once you're hired into a particular position at a particular company. That is very, very different from being required to have a union membership to get a particular anywhere in the state.
Furthermore, the big difference is the scale. It's a lot harder to get a large group of people to agree on a political course of action than it is to get one person to agree with themselves. The entire point of
Re: (Score:2)
There are many "right to work" states where you do not HAVE to join a union. Here are lists of them:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/R... [wikipedia.org]
http://www.nrtw.org/rtws.htm [nrtw.org]
If they are not "right to work" then you can assume that you are forced to join a union to get a unionized job.
Re: (Score:2)
Right, quite a few years ago my state wasn't "Right to work" and I was forced into several unions. They take the dues right out of your check, you have no choice at all. After my state went right to work, you could ask to be removed from the union. This had little effect on you personally, but for the first few years there was a lot of derogatory comments thrown at me. I didn't mind, I was getting paid more and the Union never did a damned thing for me.
Re: (Score:2)
By the way: better description here:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/U... [wikipedia.org]
Basically, you can't be forced to do things like attend meetings, vote, etc. But you CAN be forced to pay dues or loose your job.
Re: (Score:2)
Yep, I'm aware of union shops and right to work states. Just wanted to be sure what you were talking about, because your initial description told a much, much wilder story.
Re: (Score:2)
So you had the citation you requested, but didn't think he had it? /boggle
Re:Unions. (Score:5, Interesting)
Keep in mind that in many states, union membership is required in order to get the job.
I've never understood this about the USA, it seems to completely miss the point of unions. Here, there are often two or three unions that are competing for members, so you get the benefits of collective bargaining and the benefits of competition. Collective bargaining via a monopoly that has no incentive to represent your interests is much the same position you're in with no union at all...
Mod parent up (Score:2)
I don't have any points today.
Re: (Score:3)
Yes, and "union" is nearly as useful as "struct."
Geek humor aside, I am not actually against unions, but I am against making union membership mandatory. In an ideal world, labor vs. management would be a perfect balance. However, bad things happen when one side gets more power over the other. If management is too powerful, poor working conditions and poor wag
Should the US government censor political blogs? (Score:2, Insightful)
...or would you recognize that as a gross abuse of free spe
Re: (Score:2)
So, just because the Warren Burger led supreme court went 5-3 (Justice Stevens did not take part) in Buckley vs Valeo in favor of this line of reasoning does not make it correct. It simply means that our Supreme court believed that it knew better than the majority of Congress, who felt strongly enough about limiting campaign money to override Gerald Fords veto.
Re: (Score:3, Insightful)
That's easy. A blog is speech. Money isn't.
You're certainly entitled to your opinion. Whatever term you use, it's clear that you want to let the government take away our "freedom to spend our own money to get the word out about something". That means less freedom. Maybe you're happy with that, because governments never, ever abuse their position when given leeway to curtail personal freedoms?
Blogs (and the internet, for the most part still) are fairly democratic institutions.
I think you define "democratic" differently than I do.
Using cash to drown out the majority of voices is tyranny. A more egregious twisting of the intent of the 1st amendment I cannot imagine.
Using the government to outlaw political movies, political blogs (that cost money to operate), newspape
Re: (Score:2)
I think you define "democratic" differently than I do.
The idea behind democracy was one person, one vote.
Not one dollar, one vote.
If dollars didn't have the ability to warp the debate, by raising the noise level based not on the number of people involved, but sheerly on how much noise that could be made, we'd simply laugh at all the campaign spending excesses as a waste of money.
But, while it's obvious that money alone cannot guarantee an election, it's obvious that a lot of people both con and pro think it can do something, and if we're to be any form of demo
Re: (Score:2)
I'm not sure who you are replying to. You seem to be addressing statements that you think somebody made... but I don't see any of them in my post.
Of course money can be exchanged for greater access to an audience. Money can be exchanged to a lot of things. But that doesn't make it any of those things. Money is rarely regulated in the same manner as the things it can be exchanged for.
When the majority of voices do not have some means of access to be heard, there is no such thing as free speech. (In fact, doe
Re: (Score:2)
The answer lies in the freedoms guaranteed by the 1st Amendment, whether you like the "money=speech" idea or not. Tell me why I'm wrong, please!
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
So... we all know that is "not OK", but why exactly is it "not OK"?
Because there are different rules for the different parties, simple as that. They need the same set of rules, as do the Libertarian, Green, Justice, etc parties. As it is now, anyone who is not a D or R isn't allowed to debate on TV for president, because the people in charge of regulating presidential debates are Ds and Rs, and those are their rules. We don't even need to resort to hypotheticals to figure out why this is a problem. It's not even an issue of free speech, it's an issue of everyone having
Re: (Score:3)
Re: (Score:2)
Extremism in the defense of Liberty is no vice.
You, the one who wants to restrict free speech because you don't like the results, how would you feel if a right winger tried this only towards the kind of speech liberals like? Liberals didn't complain when it was only Soros' money, but when the Libertarian/Conservative Koch brothers adopt the same exact donation category, all of a sudden you hate it.
Take your slavery and shove it. People like you are the problem, not Koch and Soros.
Re: (Score:2)
I was speaking to the people who think the first amendment goes too far. not "you" you. Sorry about the confusion.
The people I hear complaining about Koch brothers are all liberals, and the ones wanting to restrict money in politics, while saying Unions and Soros can spend all they want. Some people want it both ways.
Re: (Score:2)
I sincerely hope you meant that as sarcasm, but fear otherwise.
The first amendment has become a sad parody of itself, when we have "first amendment zones"; a press crippled by a tide of anti-whistleblower policies and laws; the complete disregard for religious proscriptions in business; and an inability to petition the government for redr
Re: (Score:2)
Re:Should the US government censor political blogs (Score:4, Insightful)
For the same reason a ham sandwich isn't a duck?
"Money" describes tokens of value used in trade for goods and services. "Speech" describes, in its most abstract form, the communication of ideas. The two have entirely different purposes, different modalities, different styles of accountancy/accountability (as appropriate).
Now, if you want to debate whether or not companies can use as much money as they have to directly share their own opinions with the public, such as Chik-Fil-A coming out as anti-gay, we can talk. But Walmart anonymously pumping billions into anti-union candidates or Tyson buying their way into anti-agricultural-whistleblower laws, come about as far from "speech" as that ham sandwich does from a duck.
Re: (Score:3)
Correct, money is not speech but it provides the means to allow speech to be heard and read. Do you think those horrible terrorist of the 1770s were using magical printing presses that magically produced lead, paper and ink or do you think that maybe, just maybe, they had to spend their money to buy those supplies? Is that not pretty much the same as buying ads in newspapers, magazines and on radio and TV?
Re: (Score:3)
Re: (Score:2)
There's a plausible argument to be made that the 1st Amendment requires that a government can't make it illegal to donate money to their political opponents.
The fact that money is classified as speech but prostitution is illegal doesn't match up. Paying for political influence should not be legal.
Re:Should the US government censor political blogs (Score:4, Insightful)
Re:Should the US government censor political blogs (Score:4, Insightful)
the problem is that suppressing certain kinds of donations means preventing people from "getting the word out" about something important to them
Outright disallowing donations is one thing. It's another to place limits on how much they can give. 196 people shouldn't be allowed to donate 80% of the money that goes to super PACs, that is simply buying political influence by those who can afford it. If the donation limit was capped at $1000 per person, for example, then that would change things. Mayday PAC is a good example - the word is out, and it doesn't require people to donate a million dollars each. People can still get the word out, but the power should be with groups of like-minded people rather than very wealthy individuals. Sheldon Adelson said it best:
"I'm against very wealthy people attempting to or influencing elections," he shrugs. "But as long as it's doable I'm going to do it."
The $11 million he gave to Gingritch is 0.044% of his $25 billion worth. That's the same as a person worth a million dollars donating $440. It doesn't matter to him, but it drowns out everyone else who can't afford to give $11 million. It also drowns out people like those who support Mayday, who combined can only muster a little over $2 million (so far, anyway).
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
OK, if it's so desirable to "level the playing field" so some people don't influence more than others, why not censor some highly influential political bloggers?
Because I am concerned with money, not actual speech. People can say whatever they want to say. It's not about leveling all playing fields everywhere in every domain, it is about restricting the influence of MONEY in politics. Limbaugh and O'Reilly and Jon Stewart can say whatever they want to say to their audiences, and if they can convince them to vote a certain way, fine. That is not even in the same arena as Sheldon Adelson giving Gingritch $11 million dollars to single-handedly boost his presidenti
Re: (Score:3)
But you still haven't given any reason why Sheldon Adelson's money is any different here than Famous Q. PolitiBlogger's virtual soapbox. In both cases, one person has drastically larger influence on the political debate than the masses of people around them. Why is this imbal
Re: (Score:2)
"There's a plausible argument to be made that exactly zero corporations are owned by robots today "
Careful, you don't want to go down that line or reasoning.
Our own judgement will we keep about down what line of reasoning we want to go.
"...you are a somewhat under-informed parroter of left wing talking points."
You are growing increasingly shrill and defensive. Relax. I'm more of what I call a "pre-Rand" libertarian.
I don't care how you describe yourself, but it is my personal policy to become increasingly shrill and defensive when people suggest removing my 1st Amendment's protection from government control/tyranny. :p
Re:Should the US government censor political blogs (Score:4, Insightful)
There's a plausible argument that people shouldn't lose their free speech rights just because they get together in order to exercise them, or formalize their arrangement by forming a corporation.
There's also a plausible argument to be made that if you can't spend your money on, say, traveling places to speak or buying poster boards for signs, you can't actually speak. In fact, if you can't spend any money related to political speech, your speech is largely limited to speaking to yourself at home.
It's almost intuitive.
Re: (Score:2)
Because money is not speech.
OK. But you ignored and did not address my point. If it is desirable to "level the playing field" and make sure some people don't have more of a voice than others, then it should be OK to censor some political blogs, right? (Assuming we got that pesky 1st Amendment reduced in scope.)
Doesn't it undermine the entire concept of democracy if some political bloggers have wider readership (and more influence) than others? That is the core idea behind why you want to change the money flow, right? It's not ul
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:3)
Getting Democracy Right (Score:3)
As there are many shapes and forms to democratic process, can you reference an active government that have 'gotten it right' at least in terms of dealing with campaign / direct contributions that you find working well (or at least as close to what you're proposing to introduce)?
Mayday PAC (Score:5, Interesting)
Why not Wolf PAC? (Score:5, Interesting)
Re: (Score:3)
There's no point in referencing statistical outliers. The 26th amendment took 3 months and 8 days to ratify. Seven amendments have taken less than a year.
Re: (Score:3)
You must be new here. Statistical outliers are what we do.
One of us has a malfunctioning humor detector. Hard to say whom.
Having the PAC's voice heard? (Score:2)
Hello, Mr. Lessig. I'm not entirely sure what the end-game fundraising goal for the PAC is, but I know that many of the people running for Congress are backed by the ultra-rich. In my state, Connecticut, we had a single Senate candidate (Linda McMahon, CEO of World Wrestling Entertainment) spend something like $97 million of her own money on two races in 2011 and 2012. That averages to over $45 million per race for a single candidate, though I'm not sure how representative Linda McMahon is of the average ca
Re: (Score:2)
Outspending (Score:3)
Morality and permanence (Score:3)
Government regulation of political speech (Score:5, Insightful)
Why does the prospect of government regulation of political speech not terrify you to your core? Any "campaign reform" proposal must necessarily result in government deciding which speech is political and which is not, which is permissible and which is not. How do you prevent government from suppressing only political speech that it disapproves of?
Re: (Score:3)
By instituting rules that apply to how speech is created, and completely disassociated from the content of that speech.
Some examples:
1) You can't run ads that mention political candidates or parties 2 weeks before an election.
2) You can't contribute more than x money to the campaign of a single person/party for a specific election.
Does it leave concern-troll ads open? Sure does. It's not meant to be remove all influence of money on political speech. It just attempts to curtail the impact that a single large
Re:Government regulation of political speech (Score:4, Insightful)
Re: (Score:2)
Sideslash has it exactly right. The answer to speech you don't like - be it the content, or the source - is more speech explaining why it's wrong, not silencing speech you disagree with.
Regulations to speech have the problem that they're open to interpretation by the regulators - and regulations to political speech have the additional problem that they can silence the very speech needed to fight them.
Re: (Score:3)
Sure, all voices deserve to be heard. That's why people should be allowed to band together freely to speak louder than any one person can.
Guess what? That's exactly what allowing corporations to have free speech does. Don't believe me? Ask Greenpeace or the Sierra Club or the World Wildlife Federation, all of which are corporations.
Makes News Media Even More Powerful (Score:5, Interesting)
The two major parties have done everything in their power to make sure that minority candidates have virtually insurmountable obstacles to their getting onto a ballot in the first place, and even then these candidates are rarely given serious coverage by the media. If you were to actually succeed in taking the money out of political campaigning, then how do you keep the news media from completely controlling who gets elected by their control of who is able to get their message out?
Don't suggest that a "Fairness Doctrine" will provide equal coverage to all candidates, because there would certainly be a test for "viability" of candidates before they get any taxpayer-provided funding, and only major-party candidates would ever pass that test.
Implementation Details (Score:2)
Amendment Effort Scope (Score:3, Interesting)
Term Limits (Score:5, Interesting)
Mr. Lessig,
Have you considered the potential side effect that if you are successful in removing "money from politics"? You will likely end up enormously empowering the position of incumbency, establishing a ruling class that once elected, no one will have the capabilities to truly mount a successful campaign against.
Incumbents have huge benefits and a large number of tools to communicate to the voters (who are of course their constituents, so they can even justify it).
My great fear is that campaign finance reform will do nothing to stem the tide of permanent, lifetime, politicians dominating our system. Even in the worst election for incumbents in a half century (2010) over 80% of incumbents won.
Will you support and make your backed candidates support a constitutional amendment to create and enforce term limits on members of Congress?
If Mayday can't support term limits, then I can't support it. In fact I may feel compelled to fight against it. I don't even really want money out of politics if it leads to lifetime memberships in Congress for the lucky ones that achieve office once, and then never lose again until they die.
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
We imposed term limits to prevent an imperial presidency.
We did nothing to limit an imperial congress.
Money vs. Free Speech (Score:2)
I'd love to hear your opinion on the debate over Money as a form of Speech. Should expenditure of money be protected as a form of expression or restricted as a form of coercion (just like some forms of speech are)? How are speech and money similar and how are they fundamentally distinct?
Single-Issue Candidates (Score:2)
No, no.. Two things we need... (Score:2)
They are going about this the wrong way... There are TWO things we should do to fix this...
1. FULL DISCLOSURE - Namely, make ALL political organizations, candidates and campaigns disclose the source of EVERY penny they receive. If the organization does advocacy for any political issue or candidate, it requires FULL disclosure. Disclosures need to be in a common format and available to the public and should identify by name and address every individual, company, etc who donated to the organization. Als
Reduce Incumbents' Advantages? (Score:4, Interesting)
Not trying to be snarky... (Score:4, Interesting)
When your goal is 12,000,000 and have the support of Mr. Wozniak and he believes in your PAC, why not just get the money from him?
(I mean, if I have billions and a topic I support, and 12 million wouldn't make me lose sleep. Just saying.)
Heck, he could start a PR firm that will handle all the ads and such for the PAC and be paid by the PAC. Or you can take a loan from the PAC to pay your bills. Isn't that the way PACs are run currently?
Less than impressed (Score:2)
Chasing symptoms and not the real problem? (Score:4, Insightful)
Mr. Lessig:
Have you read Crispin Sartwell's article in the latest June issue of The Atlantic [theatlantic.com]? Mr. Sartwell seems to make arguments that imply that efforts such as that of RootStrikers and the Mayday PAC are merely nibbling at the edges of the true problem and not addressing it directly. If the hierarchies of wealth concentration and governance are inextricably linked through a Principle of Hierarchical Coincidence, then will you unlink them merely by legislating campaign finance reforms? For that matter, would even a round of revolutionary head-chopping do the job when so many other heads have been groomed and eagerly await the same chance at dominance?
Legislation? Or a Constitutional Amendment? (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
This is why I asked about his opinion on the Money vs. Speech question. If he honestly believes money isn't speech then it's now a constitutional issue, since the Supreme Court has essentially decided Money == Speech. If he believes money is speech then legislating a restriction on money won't (now) pass constitutional muster. In either case legislation appears to be a losing proposition (long term at least).
Getting media attention? (Score:2)
I love this idea Dr. Lesseg, was one of the first to donate in May.
I was wondering how difficult it is to get media access to shows? It seems like one or two interviews on Colbert, Daily Show, John Oliver, etc. would propel the campaign to the finish line but it hasn't happened yet. I'm assuming you have tried, and/or would be more than willing to appear if they called?
Unintended consequences (Score:3)
Concerning the goals and strategy of the Mayday PAC, what unintended results are you most concerned about, and how do you intend to avert them? E.g., further legitimizing the "buying" of elections, or contributing to the escalation of political spending.
Citizens United (Score:4, Insightful)
Mr. Lessig,
Since it seems that your PAC espouses the belief that Citizens United is a horrible supreme court ruling, and noting that the key product of the Citizens United LLC was a Documentary, and also noting that almost all documentaries are backed by or produced by corporations of one form or another; aren't you explicitly calling for the total prohibition of political documentaries in our political system? Also, is the publishing by major corporations (this includes all publishing companies) of books that are about politicians or from politicians required to be banned to take money out of politics?
Why are media corporations exempt. (Score:2, Interesting)
Why do in-kind contributions from media corporations get a pass on contribution limits in your proposal?
What's the outcome supposed to be? (Score:4, Interesting)
MayDay.US promises to "reduce the influence of money". That's a good sound bite, but the reason other people don't like your proposals is not that they like "the influence of money", but that they don't see any way of reducing that that doesn't do more harm than good. So, please be specific: what outcome do you actually envision and desire, and how are the details going to work? You propose "public funding" or "vouchers", but you are vague on who gets to make the decisions about (1) who violates your rules, (2) who the money can go to, and (3) who will still be allowed to use their own resources for political purposes.
(1) If you impose restrictions on political speech, someone needs to be in charge of determining which political speech is in violation of the restrictions you envision. For example, does generally opposing a political ideology count as political speech that I can't spend money on? Is this determined by the courts? The executive branch? Why wouldn't that power be abused by incumbents?
(2) Who can I give the vouchers that pay for political speech to? Just candidates? Not-for-profits? For-profits? Would it be a felony to sell these vouchers for money?
(3) You work for a rich and powerful organization, and many media organizations are rich and powerful too. Will universities and news corporations be subject to the same restrictions on political speech? Will you be prohibited from speaking on political issues? Will the editors of the NYT be prohibited from commenting on candidates? If not, why should they be exempted? Why should the $32+ billion company you work for have rights to engage in political speech that other companies do not?
International comparison? (Score:3)
There are many campaign finance systems around the world, and a lot of experience with them in other countries. Can you provide clear and concrete evidence that the kind of mechanisms you envision work better in practice in other countries?
What, in fact, are your objective criteria for "better democracy"?
Note that it is insufficient to cite factors that you prefer for ideological reasons. For example, particular forms of campaign finance may correlate with lower levels of income inequality, but if that's your argument, you are really arguing that we should change the campaign finance system to achieve your political objectives, not in order to achieve a better democracy (low levels of income inequality are not by themselves an indication of a functioning democracy, since low income inequality exists even in many non-democratic nations).
staying true (Score:4, Interesting)
Mr. Lessig, while I respect your efforts on many levels, I'm curious what strategies you will use to prevent those that you will help will with your Mayday PAC to not go off the reservation should they win.
Wolf-Pac seems better than Mayday -- Question.. (Score:2)
Why should we trust you? (Score:2)
You're a lawyer, and the restrictions on speech you propose will certainly lots of opportunity for lawyers to exercise power and get additional work. You personally are almost certainly part of the 1%, and if you insinuate that businessmen try to influence politics for their monetary gain, why shouldn't we assume the same about you? Furthermore, while you propose restrictions on the political speech of other people, you don't seem to be proposing restrictions on the political speech of newspaper corporation
Thank You Dr. Lessig (Score:3)
I've followed your work on behalf of free culture for years sir, and let me just say "Thank you".
The importance of your current campaign cannot be overstated; no country can be truly "free" it is in fact owned by a few tyrants. Corruption was bad before Citizens United and it's almost uncontroversial to say it's the worst in our history. Aside from donating money, how can individuals help? I'm sure you know this crowd has no shortage of technical skills and I'd be happy to volunteer myself.
What if the PAC supports politician I oppose? (Score:3)
So - I really like the idea of the PAC. I want to contribute. BUT, I don't want to undermine my other causes.
Question: Will this PAC be promoting both liberal and conservative politicians who advocate this one very important issue? The mayday.us website says 5 races will be targeted. What races and why those particular races?
Example:
Politician A is "wrong" on every issue but campaign finance reform.
Politician B is "right" on every issue but wrong on campaign finance reform.
How can someone like me - who believes the current campaign finance system is a rot at the heart of our democracy, but also has to balance this issue with other important issues - how can my concerns be assuaged?
Expand Size of House of Representatives (Score:3, Interesting)
INTRO: Money and lobbyists in politics is the symptom, not the solution.
Federal Constitution specifies a census to count people to expand the number of seats in House of Representatives. This was capped in 1913, which allowed lobbyists and money to increase influence. We should have ~80,000 or less people per representative, so each person could conceivably have a group lunch with their rep. Now there are over 1 million people per representative, so only those with money (lobbyists) get access.
QUESTION: Instead of focusing on the symptom of money in politics, why not focus on returning to representative government by allowing the House to grow with population?
RESEARCH LINKS:
424 seats in small state of New Hampshire https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/... [wikipedia.org]
Federal House seats capped in 1913 https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/... [wikipedia.org]
435 Representatives Can Not Faithfully Represent 300 Million Americans http://www.thirty-thousand.org... [thirty-thousand.org]
Before smart-guys-and-gals say "30,000 people won't fit", consider meeting in a stadium once a year with tele-conferences the remainder of the sessions. Real representation, and the follow-on impotency of money and lobbyists, is worth the additional cost of paying 30,000 representatives.
we won the race to the bottom! USA! USA! USA! (Score:2)
Re: (Score:3)
Because free markets do not exist, and capitalism is not a silver bullet to the world's problems (it may, however, be a silver bullet for the problems of the 1% to get more money, which is why quite a few people like it).
That said, I can't figure out if this is sarcasm, or if someone is serious. The political discussion in this country is seriously fucked.
Re: (Score:2)
Regulations also differ - as do local market conditions.
Re: (Score:2)
Irony (Score:3)
Re:Irony (Score:4, Insightful)
This would be taken seriously if Cantor hadn't just lost after outspending the other guy 5,000,000 to 200,000. Liberals think Money is the problem, always the problem, rather than the people. The problem is the people who are too stupid and fall for the same hate filled rhetoric. This is especially true in (D) districts where people vote primarily on (D) after the name, and then "name recognition" after that, and rarely (if ever) on actual issues.
The fix is to research and vote with your conscience. Which is why I haven't voted (D) or (R) in years.
Re:Irony (Score:5, Insightful)
This would be taken seriously if Cantor hadn't just lost after outspending the other guy 5,000,000 to 200,000.
. The Eric Cantor case was an exception, not the rule. In most cases, the politician who greatly outspends his opponent usually wins
But the bigger issue that Lessig doesn't seem to understand is that he's not the only person trying to buy politicians. No matter how much money he raises, there are people out there spending a whole lot more money, a LOT more money, to buy politicians who oppose the political agenda supported by Lessig, the EFF and others.
Re: (Score:2)
Cantor WAS the exception, proving EXCEPTIONS are possible. And, if you've paid any attention the last six years or so, you'll have seen a number of incumbent (R) lose primaries. I can't recall a (D) losing a primary ... if ever.
Again, the problem isn't the money, it is stupid voters who click based on name recognition and characterizations by opponents. It is easy to paint me as a bumbling fool, but only to people who don't really know me.
Re: (Score:3)
Cantor WAS the exception, proving EXCEPTIONS are possible. And, if you've paid any attention the last six years or so, you'll have seen a number of incumbent (R) lose primaries. I can't recall a (D) losing a primary ... if ever.
I know some lottery winners too. Thinking exceptions are more common, or available, or possible, than they really are, is why the stupid tax is so effective.
Again, the problem isn't the money, it is stupid voters who click based on name recognition and characterizations by opponents.
And what triggers name recognition and characterizations better than tons and tons of money buying tons and tons of advertising to brainwash stupid voters?
It is easy to paint me as a bumbling fool, but only to people who don't really know me.
It is difficult to paint you as a bumbling fool amongst a wide enough audience without lots of money. It is likewise difficult for people to get to know you without spending money to tell them about
Re: (Score:2)
Usually, politicians who are likely to win simply attract more donations because they are more popular to begin with. They also get lots of money from people who agree with their politics. Those correlations don't mean that spending money causes them to win, nor for that matter that their political decisions are influenced by donations. Actual data shows little actual influence o
Re: (Score:2)
I think the fact that Cantor and his supporters felt he had to spend so much money, even though common belief was that he would win, indicates something. And perhaps he lost because he did not spend enough.