Live data from Hacker News

Lessig Ends Presidential Campaign

facebook.com

101–110 of 246 posts

Re: Lessig Ends Presidential Campaign

#101
post #32

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Citizens United is not freedom of speech.

Actually it is. For when you show willingness to silence one form of speech by anyone you forever give up your right to form any association to do similar. While many of us do not like all the money in politics how people assemble to pool that money should not be the concern. The concern should be and always should be how politicians routinely ignore the rule of law and Constitution and twist the words to deliver the…

No. I'm sorry, but spending money is not speech. Restricting the amount of money that one can donate to political campaigns would be perfectly fine, and would not infringe upon anyone's rights at all.

Re: Lessig Ends Presidential Campaign

#102
post #73

I supported Lessig's presidential campaign monetarily, even though I never thought he had a snowball's chance and also didn't think that his model of affecting change was fully thought through. As entrepreneurs, I think many of us can sympathize with the idea of knowing that there is a huge, massive problem that needs to be fixed, without necessarily having the solution fully formed. It would have been so easy for Le…

Serious question: given that he didn't have a snowball's chance, why did you give him money, as opposed to giving money to some other change agent that does have a chance?

Democracy is an information system - it is not just about politics, it is an approximation of a society's needs, wants, and its moral zeitgeist. Voting is how we add information into this.

Who wins or loses in one election is based on its instantaneous value. But this system has long oscillation times. Some may vote to signal long-term wishes (Lessig), some short-term (Sanders). Both choices I guess are fine.

Re: Lessig Ends Presidential Campaign

#103
post #42

I'm not a citizen of the U.S. so maybe I'm missing something. Why is he not just switching to the Republican party? What's this nonsense about his ideals being more in line with the democrats? I thought the Republicans were all about the founding fathers and making sure the United States are not ruled by the old-rich?

For not being a citizen you have some strong opinions about his alignment being "nonsense." Basically, republicans have utilized the increasingly deregulated campaign financing (via Super PACs) to a much later extent than Democrats. The key figure on this page[1] is on the unlimited donations category, which largely comes from the rich, old or not. I think this article[2] describing the upwards redistribution of wealth by the right might also surprise you.

[1] http://www.nytimes.com/interactive/2016/us/elections/electio...

[2] http://www.vox.com/2015/11/2/9656398/republican-welfare-stat...

EDIT: Also, even more to the point, it's been a conservative court than has unspooled campaign finance regulation to the point where Lessig felt obligated to step in.

Re: Lessig Ends Presidential Campaign

#104
post #73

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Serious question: given that he didn't have a snowball's chance, why did you give him money, as opposed to giving money to some other change agent that does have a chance?

Sometimes its about sending a message. After all, its not a horse race; you don't win any prize by backing the winner.

I don't win a prize for backing a winner. Though I feel that there are some of the 1% that put big money in the race and expect a prize.

Re: Lessig Ends Presidential Campaign

#105

With all the critical "I-told-you-sos", this seems like a good time to quote Teddy Roosevelt: "It is not the critic who counts; not the man who points out how the strong man stumbles, or where the doer of deeds could have done them better. The credit belongs to the man who is actually in the arena, whose face is marred by dust and sweat and blood; who strives valiantly; who errs, who comes short again and again, beca…

God, how I hate this quote. It's TR justifying his own worst qualities -- his impetuousity, his willingness to wade into things without thinking them through. Two years after he made that speech ( https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Citizenship_in_a_Republic ) he would wade into the 1912 Presidential election, where his major accomplishment was splitting the Republican vote and therefore handing the election to the Democra…

Taking risks has no meaning if there are no downside consequences.

Re: Lessig Ends Presidential Campaign

#106
post #57

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Contrary to the other reply, the Democratic and Republican parties are extremely different. It's very unusual for someone to feel comfortable just switching from one to the other suddenly. And don't confuse rhetoric with reality. The Republican Party is pro-business and, more importantly, anti-government - almost anarchists these days. Lessig's dreams of regulating campaign spending by corporations and the wealthy fl…

> The Republican Party is pro-business and, more importantly, anti-government That's the theory, but often not the practice. The Republican Party often favors bigger government, they just disagree about what to spend it on. Neither party is particularly small-government anymore.

Yeah, I can agree with that. I think it's a matter of interpretation. While they latch on to big-government things, the language is a phrasing of hostility, and the governing is borderline sabotage and hostage-taking. The shutdown crises suck.

Re: Lessig Ends Presidential Campaign

#107

Earlier quoted context omitted.

God, how I hate this quote. It's TR justifying his own worst qualities -- his impetuousity, his willingness to wade into things without thinking them through. Two years after he made that speech ( https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Citizenship_in_a_Republic ) he would wade into the 1912 Presidential election, where his major accomplishment was splitting the Republican vote and therefore handing the election to the Democra…

Thats missing the essence of that quote IMO. Of course people are going to fail even again and again. You are somehow assuming that there are ways to know. But if anything we learned it is that it's trough trial and error and luck that we mostly succeed not trough armchair strategy sessions. You seem to have an issue with TR that clouds your ability to understand whats important in that quote IMO.

He is not missing it, he is addressing when it does not fit the situation and points out that this is one of those moments.

There's a sweetspot with weighing planning and doing.

Re: Lessig Ends Presidential Campaign

#108
post #45
post #32

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Citizens United is not freedom of speech.

The Supreme Court has held that it is, and if you want to argue against it then that's fine, but you need a better argument than "nuh uh". How many of the folks who argue against the Citizens United ruling have actually read it and understand the legal basis for it?

The Supreme Court also held that "Separate but Equal" was perfectly fine. They don't get things right all the time.

And the argument is that money isn't speech.

Re: Lessig Ends Presidential Campaign

#109
post #101

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Actually it is. For when you show willingness to silence one form of speech by anyone you forever give up your right to form any association to do similar. While many of us do not like all the money in politics how people assemble to pool that money should not be the concern. The concern should be and always should be how politicians routinely ignore the rule of law and Constitution and twist the words to deliver the…

No. I'm sorry, but spending money is not speech. Restricting the amount of money that one can donate to political campaigns would be perfectly fine, and would not infringe upon anyone's rights at all.

Spending money is necessary in order to speak to a large audience. You need money to rent space to use as meeting halls, or to buy advertising space like billboards or newspaper space, or even simply run a website. The more traffic, the more eyeballs, the more people impacted, the more it costs. Speech in the real world costs money.

The presidential election isn't won in the town square, where everyone can hear him gather to speak simultaneously. That might work for mayoral elections of small towns, but it does not work for a nation of 318 million people. And besides, who is going to pay to rent an auditorium for a town hall meeting?

The citizens deserve to hear their elected leaders and candidates speak, and it requires a considerable amount of money to reach such a large audience. (Note that donating air-time or website space or advertising for a candidate is tantamount to donating money.)

What is the serious alternative? Political candidates are limited in their ability to get their message out, based on where they can travel (no money for transportation), and the people they can speak to directly in person? How will democracy function at scale? Presidential candidates are pilgrims, traveling the country by foot? They'll have a hard time reaching a few hundred thousand people at best.

If we did not allow political contributions, and we did allow candidates to spend their own money on their campaigns, then only wealthy billionaires would become successful national politicians. Indeed, many successful politicians are extremely rich, like Mitt Romney (estimated net worth: $250 million), and candidates like Donald Trump rely largely on their wealth. Small-time candidates would have zero chance against them if contribution were not allowed, even while billionaires are spending their personal fortunes.

Now, to be a fair, a purely representational democracy could perhaps function on this basis. The people in a local area elect their local leader, who travels to the capital of a territory to mingle with other local leaders, and from them elect a higher leader, and so on, such that at each level campaigning is all word-of-mouth. But that's an idea that I think will fail in reality at the scale of the USA.

Re: Lessig Ends Presidential Campaign

#110
post #101

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Actually it is. For when you show willingness to silence one form of speech by anyone you forever give up your right to form any association to do similar. While many of us do not like all the money in politics how people assemble to pool that money should not be the concern. The concern should be and always should be how politicians routinely ignore the rule of law and Constitution and twist the words to deliver the…

No. I'm sorry, but spending money is not speech. Restricting the amount of money that one can donate to political campaigns would be perfectly fine, and would not infringe upon anyone's rights at all.

The amount you can donate to a political campaign is already limited at $2700.

Your right, spending money isn't speech. However, preventing someone from buying an advertisement to display a message and they are denied because its deemed 'political' is definitely limiting someones free speech. It doesn't matter if the message is 'America Rocks', 'Shop at this new store here', or 'John McCain sucks please stop voting for him'; if your gonna limit some but not others because the message is deemed political then you no longer have free speech.

Post reply on HN