Lessig Ends Presidential Campaign • Hacker News Board

Re: Lessig Ends Presidential Campaign

#171

Post by jfager » Tue, Nov 03, 2015, 1:30 AM UTC

tptacek wrote: post #73

dankohn1 wrote: post #34

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?

"as opposed to"? People only have one money?

I threw $n at a shot to get an honest, articulate voice on stage at an early-primary-season debate, to hopefully influence the party/eventual candidate's agenda. It didn't work. Oh well.

I have a $500 iPad sitting on my coffee table gathering dust, too, which was the bigger waste?

Re: Lessig Ends Presidential Campaign

#172

Post by tptacek » Tue, Nov 03, 2015, 1:36 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?

I don't know what I think about campaign finance reform. On the one hand I have the obvious concerns about money buying influence. On the other hand, money tried real real hard to buy the 2012 election and failed comically.

Meanwhile, the free speech issues involved in regulating campaign spending, while admittedly very inconvenient for all of us, are real, and no appeal to plutocracy extinguishes them.

Certainly: the approach Sanders seems to take to this problem, of literally amending the Constitution to neuter to First Amendment and then delegating to Congress --- yes, this Congress --- an unlimited power to regulate political speech, is not OK with me.

There are lots of reforms I want to see happen at the federal level. Sentencing reform, accountability for prosecutors, financial markets regulation, health care, school funding, health care, drug decriminalization, and health care are all I think good targets for top down federal regulation. Campaign finance, I think, might be a better thing for states to grapple with first.

Re: Lessig Ends Presidential Campaign

#173

Post by Bud » Tue, Nov 03, 2015, 1:45 AM UTC

mindslight wrote: post #121

tptacek wrote: post #77

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Of the three major candidates in 2000, there's no question Nader was the least likely to support military intervention anywhere. His policy intentions, many of which I support unreservedly, aren't the issue. The issue is that he had no chance of winning the 2000 election, and by staying in, he probably cost Gore the Presidency. There's a "dispute" over whether Nader was a spoiler, but that dispute relies on the notio…

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…

We're sure Gore wouldn't have "approved the same invasion" because...

Wait. Were you even fucking AROUND in 2002? W didn't just "approve" the invasion. Are you aware of recent history?

Let me fill you in. Gore wouldn't have "approved" of invading Iraq because his entire fucking administration would not have been packed with Nixon-era holdovers who were criminally obsessed with re-invading Iraq. This isn't complex or controversial. There is no fucking chance that Gore would have invaded Iraq.

Re: Lessig Ends Presidential Campaign

#174

Post by jacobolus » Tue, Nov 03, 2015, 1:45 AM UTC

tptacek wrote: post #49

oldmanjay wrote: post #46

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Luckily for humanity, we have people who are willing to take action that others would find ill-advised. Risk aversion does not make for incredible discoveries, and an adventurous can-do sensibility drives us all onward.

Unfortunately for humanity, we have other people who are willing to take action that others would find ill-advised because they are, in fact, ill-advised. Risk aversion does not make for incredible discoveries, but has the virtue of mitigating disaster. And an adventurous can-do sensibility drives people onwards in all directions, including off cliffs. Ralph Nader is also a pretty compelling guy, on paper. In practic…

I also think Lessig’s campaign was an absurdity.

But blaming Ralph Nader for the invasion of Iraq is far far below your usual standard Thomas. Even singling out Nader as an explanation for Bush’s election is pretty weak sauce.

You might first blame everyone in the Bush Administration who didn’t resign, everyone in Congress who voted to authorize Bush’s actions, foreign heads of state who went along and everyone at the UN who took the Americans WMD claims at face value, the entirety of the mainstream US media including especially the New York Times, the previous several Republican presidents who set the stage in the Middle East, US and international oil companies, the Saudis, etc.

Or if we’re just talking about the Bush/Gore election, how about blaming the Supreme Court who decided the election 5:4, Gore who gave up instead of fighting more about it, all the local officials around the country who supported efforts to disenfranchise voters, whoever designed that “butterfly ballot”, all the people in aggregate who voted for Bush or any of the above members of Congress, Bill Clinton and the Democrats in congress who were such opportunistic spineless SOBs that folks on the left spent years thoroughly fed up with them, whoever was running Gore’s ineffective grassroots campaign/GOTV efforts and did a terrible job of convincing anyone that he’d be at all different than Clinton, etc.

Re: Lessig Ends Presidential Campaign

#175

Post by tptacek » Tue, Nov 03, 2015, 1:46 AM UTC

vezzy-fnord wrote: post #159

tptacek wrote: post #131

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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…

I'm going to assume, I think safely, that a response that characterizes my comment as "frothing lunacy" is not one asking for further discussion with me.

Re: Lessig Ends Presidential Campaign

#176

Post by Bud » Tue, Nov 03, 2015, 1:48 AM UTC

13thLetter wrote: post #153

Bud wrote: post #127

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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.

Lest you forget, the plaintiffs wanted to bash Hillary Clinton around and run infinite quantities of ads with infinite anonymous funding for said ads, too, to support "Hillary: The Movie", which wasn't actually a movie that they wanted to release, btw, it was actually a big long TV ad.

Come on, at least be intellectually honest.

They wanted to shadow-fund a TV ad campaign.

Clever of you to leave those facts out!

Re: Lessig Ends Presidential Campaign

#177

Post by jfager » Tue, Nov 03, 2015, 1:48 AM UTC

Bud wrote: post #130

jonknee wrote: post #88

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Why? He's not going to get any noticeable amount of votes and won't cause any damage to another candidate.

It has only been 15 years since Ralph Nader got W elected for two terms and cost us about $10 trillion in stupid wars and bad economic decisions, and just about destroyed the US economy to boot. Do you already need yet another new lesson on why Lessig running as an independent could easily be disastrous? Really?

The person Lessig would theoretically be Nadering, you do realize that as a Senator she voted on the wrong side of all of those bad things you're pointing out, right?

Re: Lessig Ends Presidential Campaign

#178

Post by shkkmo » Tue, Nov 03, 2015, 1:50 AM 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.

Yes, please spend my tax money so you can do you job, write laws that serve my interests. Please stop spending most of your time chasing special interests for money, stop writing laws that serve the needs of those special interests over mine.

That is exactly what I want. Why do you think it is a terrible idea? I'd eve hazard a guess that the money we save from reducing tax loop holes, bad contracts, subsidies and other pork could cover much of the cost of the public funding.

Re: Lessig Ends Presidential Campaign

#179

Post by 13thLetter » Tue, Nov 03, 2015, 1:57 AM UTC

zeckalpha wrote: post #162

13thLetter wrote: post #158

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 indistri…

He tried lobbying for sensible copyright legislation. The problem was campaign finance. Hence the pivot.

That's like pivoting from "I was unable to climb this mountain" to "I'll tear down this mountain with my bare hands." He switched from something achievable that he was qualified for to something immensely more difficult that he had no experience in. What's the result of that been?

And, you know. Even if Citizens United is overturned (hooray! It'll once again be illegal to make a movie critical of Hillary Clinton during an election! Joyous day!) Lessig's contribution to that is zero; that's going wherever it's going with or without him. It would have been better for all of us if he'd stuck with copyright where he could have made a difference.

Re: Lessig Ends Presidential Campaign

#180

Post by 13thLetter » Tue, Nov 03, 2015, 1:58 AM UTC

Bud wrote: post #176

13thLetter wrote: post #153

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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.

Lest you forget, the plaintiffs wanted to bash Hillary Clinton around and run infinite quantities of ads with infinite anonymous funding for said ads, too, to support "Hillary: The Movie", which wasn't actually a movie that they wanted to release, btw, it was actually a big long TV ad. Come on, at least be intellectually honest. They wanted to shadow-fund a TV ad campaign. Clever of you to leave those facts out!

"Lest you forget, the plaintiffs wanted to bash Hillary Clinton around"

Wait, why would it be wrong to bash a politician around again?