Julian Sanchez interviews Larry Lessig regarding a possible run for Congress:
One simple means of reducing the political power of campaign cash, Lessig says, "could be done tomorrow." He wants to ban legislative earmarks, those juicy morsels of targeted federal funding legislators direct toward pet projects and political supporters. Lessig also hopes to encourage more robust public financing of campaigns, noting the salutary effect such policies appear to be having in states like Maine and Arizona. Most immediately—and perhaps most radically—Lessig says he will swear off contributions from lobbyists or political action committees, and he hopes to bring grassroots pressure to bear on other candidates to follow suit. (Prospective opponent Jackie Speier, he notes in passing in his online video, does accept such contributions.)
Larry Lessig and I do not see eye to eye on many issues, but one certainly can't object to the prospect of more serious thinkers, and fewer professional politicians, in Congress. And earmark reform, however trivial its fiscal impact, is indisputably a blow for better government.
We have the best government money can buy.
Lessig ought to be completely and permanently disqualified from any position of public trust based on his disgraceful performance during the most recent anti-trust litigation against Microsoft. For a guy who's allegedly one of the finest legal and technical minds in the country, he either couldn't tell or lied in open court about the difference between a Windows shortcut and an executable.
Every lawyer is a professional politician.
Because earmarks are in fact a trivial component of what Congress does, their elimination would have a similarly trivial impact on the influence of campaign cash. There would still remain the tax code, tariffs, laws affecting the actions of regulatory agencies, etc. Until we reduce those, we’re doomed. Don't hold your breath.
Lessig would have a far greater impact if he'd take my advice:
lessig.org/blog/2008/02/the_day_after.html#comment-22529
If he could get 100 people to do that, it wouldn't cost hardly any money and it would have an extremely healthy impact on our political system and on the media.
I would also like to see an end to the Cuban embargo and farm subsidies, but the idea that this would somehow happen in the next 5-10 years is a fantasy. Too many members of Congress (basically everyone but Feingold) would have no way to get re-elected without pork and would never sign onto such an idea.
"Lessig would have a far greater impact if he'd take my advice:
Posted by TLB | February 21, 2008 3:58 PM"
Skip his medication?
What are the long-term consequences of public financing of campaigns? Are we more likely to grow a "professional candidate" class?
What are the long-term consequences of public financing of campaigns? Are we more likely to grow a "professional candidate" class?
We're more likely to grow a "rich people candidate" class, given that you can't prevent anyone from spending their own money, only from taking donations from others.
Isn't campaign finance reform obvious? You can donate as much as you want, but it all goes through a blind account so it's anonymous.
"Yes Mr Senator, I gave 10 million dollars. No, they don't give receipts, don't you trust me?"