Lessig Ends Presidential Campaign • Hacker News Board

Re: Lessig Ends Presidential Campaign

#151

Post by decisiveness » Mon, Nov 02, 2015, 11:56 PM UTC

tptacek wrote: post #140

decisiveness wrote: post #135

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Whether or not you agree with this it has always been the core message of Lessig's campaign: Getting special interest money out of politics should be first priority, and until we get enough citizens to care about that, it'll be extremely difficult to pass legislation that goes against any special interest. Yes, his strategy for getting the message out was broken, but he understands his campaign was quixotic in its in…

People on "our" side of the ideological spectrum are going to have an unpleasant reckoning soon with the fact that the governing that really matters happens at the state and local level. State office campaigns build a back-bench for federal politics, and the states actually do serve as laboratories for democracy, and most of the rulemaking people come into contact with are state and city rules, not federal ones. If y…

Whether nationally or at the state level, it helps the movement to have a figure on the presidential stage doing everything they can to bring special interest issues to light. Lessig's strategy was wrong, but don't think its failure should cause those after him to be discouraged. Although he probably would've had better success running for state office, Citizens United needs to be reversed, and I don't think a state-by-state movement while giving the issue little attention nationally is enough.

Although the example of marijuana legislation gaining momentum is relevant, I think it's incomparable as corruption and campaign finance reform legislation would have loads more money invested by special interest groups to oppose it.

I think it's a tough fight to be waged at any level, and the more exposure given to it the better.

Re: Lessig Ends Presidential Campaign

#152

Post by dibujante » Mon, Nov 02, 2015, 11:58 PM UTC

blakeyrat wrote: post #148

gkoberger wrote: post #8

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Lessig never wanted to be president; he wanted a podium. But you can't say that. If he indicated he wasn't serious about being president in any way, they never would have let him on stage. That being said, I think it's shameful he hasn't endorsed Sanders. Lessig acts like he's the only one working on it. Whether or not you like Sanders, he is the only viable candidate whose core issue is overturning Citizens United.…

Lessig didn't (just) want to overturn Citizens United, he wanted to make campaigns publicly financed. Meaning: the Government will spend your tax money to buy advertisements for politicians. I think that's a terrible idea, and as long as Lessig is flogging it, he won't get my support.

We have public election funding in Canada and it has ushered in the end of days. The voteman came for my last neighbour yesterday. I am certain he will come for me soon. I will save the last bullet for myself. Let this be a lesson to all those who are tempted by public election financing.

Re: Lessig Ends Presidential Campaign

#153

Post by 13thLetter » Tue, Nov 03, 2015, 12:12 AM UTC

Bud wrote: post #127

zeveb wrote: post #63

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> Whether or not you like Sanders, he is the only viable candidate whose core issue is overturning Citizens United. Repealing the First Amendment is a tremendously weighty decision, and not one whose prospect should fill anyone with optimism.

Nobody mentioned repealing the First Amendment. It would be quite easy to overturn Citizens United, a weak 5-4 decision borne of highly-questionable provenance, without touching the First Amendment in any way.

The plaintiffs in Citizens United, lest we forget, wanted to be permitted to release a movie critical of a presidential candidate during an election. If that is made illegal again, that strikes me as being quite definitely against the spirit of the First Amendment.

Re: Lessig Ends Presidential Campaign

#154

Post by 13thLetter » Tue, Nov 03, 2015, 12:15 AM UTC

s73v3r wrote: post #115

Pyxl101 wrote: post #109

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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 g…

You're not entitled to speak to a large audience. And I'm not saying to completely ban political donations. I'm saying to severely limit them. Let every citizen donate $500/year to political causes, no more. The budgeting problems of campaigns are not my concern. The ability of a few wealthy elites to completely dominate the political conversation simply by having more money, and therefore more speech, is.

And then the causes that are not popular with those in power will be the ones defined as "political."

Re: Lessig Ends Presidential Campaign

#155

Post by anu_gupta » Tue, Nov 03, 2015, 12:17 AM UTC

tptacek wrote: post #140

decisiveness wrote: post #135

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Whether or not you agree with this it has always been the core message of Lessig's campaign: Getting special interest money out of politics should be first priority, and until we get enough citizens to care about that, it'll be extremely difficult to pass legislation that goes against any special interest. Yes, his strategy for getting the message out was broken, but he understands his campaign was quixotic in its in…

People on "our" side of the ideological spectrum are going to have an unpleasant reckoning soon with the fact that the governing that really matters happens at the state and local level. State office campaigns build a back-bench for federal politics, and the states actually do serve as laboratories for democracy, and most of the rulemaking people come into contact with are state and city rules, not federal ones. If y…

And armchair liberals sit back and whine in their elitist towers. "You're doing it wrong!!!!!"

Re: Lessig Ends Presidential Campaign

#156

Post by tbrake » Tue, Nov 03, 2015, 12:19 AM UTC

tptacek wrote: post #85

studentrob wrote: post #72

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Thanks for your reply. So presumably this would bring us back to the state of things from 1971 with the entrance of the Federal Election Campaign Act, including the limitation on spending money on media? It sounds tricky. The most powerful thing about free speech is the right to say whatever you want about your government. But given the apparent level of corruption, maybe it's time to limit corporations' ability to m…

Sanders' amendment essentially says that nothing in the First Amendment can be construed to limit Congress's ability to protect the integrity of elections, and (this is explicit in the amendment and without precedent anywhere else in the Constitution) from the wealthy. He delegates to Congress the details on how to use that new power to suppress the First Amendment.

I do normally agree with your posts but this seems ... distressingly principled, if you like :)

If we adhere to the idea that "money is speech" (Buckley v Valeo) and resist all attempts at suppressing speech, how do we avoid an eventual slide into plutocracy when upwards of 90% of all elections these days are won by the candidate who spends the most money?

Re: Lessig Ends Presidential Campaign

#157

Post by EdSharkey » Tue, Nov 03, 2015, 12:22 AM UTC

beat wrote: post #106

JoshTriplett wrote: post #99

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> 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.

Yeah, they sortof suck, but we're 20T in the hole and 9% of the federal budget goes to debt service. That sucks more!

When do the rabble on the right who instigate these debt showdowns get to be the righteous good guys instead of demons? Do we really need to spiral down to some catastrophe before we wake up and make a change here? It's the banksters accumulating most of the power with this debt here. I suspect the left will do the opposite of what should be done and install more growth-slowing policies and spend even more rapidly than the establishment republicans have.

Re: Lessig Ends Presidential Campaign

#158

Post by 13thLetter » Tue, Nov 03, 2015, 12:22 AM UTC

Lessig's actions in the past several years have been a major disappointment. I admired his work in pushing the copyright case (Eldred v. Ashcroft) all the way to the Supreme Court. Even though he lost, that at least got the issue into the media a little bit, something no one else has managed; that's something that could have been built upon.

But instead of building on that and (for example) working with tech indistries to lobby for more sensible copyright legislation, he decided to go after a far more enormous and difficult task of somehow reforming the entire election system, something which I have to wonder if he even has any particular qualifications or experience to do. Then he decided that the way to accomplish that was to run for President, which is generally taken by the media and most people who follow politics as the sign of a crank. And now that's evaporated, as one would have expected, and we're back where we started. No Presidency, certainly no election law reform, and the same old awful copyright laws getting worse all the time.

Re: Lessig Ends Presidential Campaign

#159

Post by vezzy-fnord » Tue, Nov 03, 2015, 12:28 AM UTC

tptacek wrote: post #131

mindslight wrote: post #121

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Yes, it was totally Nader and Nader voters that caused the invasion of Iraq, not the 50 million people who voted for Bush, nor the hordes of people who cheered on going to war, nor the butthurt NYPD that suppressed protests (only mentioned due to personal experience), nor the mass media that started fanning the flames and beating the drums before the dust had even settled. Let us remember, Bush II ran on a platform o…

This argument might make you feel better, and it sure sounds sympathetic, but it doesn't change the fact that Nader's hopeless campaign gave the election to Bush. It's not as if the concept of spoiler candidates is new to US politics; it's how we got Clinton, the President in office at when Nader ran!

That's a rather intriguing causal chain of responsibility, though. You didn't say that Nader was a potential chain reaction for the election of Bush leading up to Iraq. No. You quite clearly said he was the reason for Iraq, and that is nothing but frothing lunacy. What kind of perverse ethics could lead to anyone but the actor who affirmed invasion (Bush) bearing responsibility for it? Or, to paraphrase from a scene in Kieslowski's film Przypadek, is someone who bumps into a person causing them to miss a train, leading them to encounter an old acquaintance, reuniting, becoming a doctor and taking the place of a colleague to deliver a lecture in another country, only to die in a plane crash - is the one who bumped him responsible for the doctor then dying in the crash? Preposterous.

Re: Lessig Ends Presidential Campaign

#160

Post by AnimalMuppet » Tue, Nov 03, 2015, 12:29 AM UTC

tbrake wrote: post #156

tptacek wrote: post #85

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Sanders' amendment essentially says that nothing in the First Amendment can be construed to limit Congress's ability to protect the integrity of elections, and (this is explicit in the amendment and without precedent anywhere else in the Constitution) from the wealthy. He delegates to Congress the details on how to use that new power to suppress the First Amendment.

I do normally agree with your posts but this seems ... distressingly principled, if you like :) If we adhere to the idea that "money is speech" (Buckley v Valeo) and resist all attempts at suppressing speech, how do we avoid an eventual slide into plutocracy when upwards of 90% of all elections these days are won by the candidate who spends the most money?

How do you think elections get won?

They get won by getting the most votes. And how do they get the most votes? Well, by persuading the most people (of those who bother to vote) that your position on the issues is the one that will work the best for them. Getting that message out takes money. And how do you get the money? Well, by persuading the people who give money to politicians that your position on the issues is the one that will work the best for them.

"The most money" and "the most votes" are not completely unrelated, and they're not related only by "money lets you yell the loudest at easily-influenced voters". Campaigns attract money for the same reason they attract votes; it's not surprising to see a large correlation.