Live data from Hacker News

On the wikileak-ed emails from Tanden on Lessig

lessig.tumblr.com

61–70 of 76 posts

Re: On the wikileak-ed emails from Tanden on Lessig

#61
post #4

This is incredibly gracious of Lessig, to defend someone who treated him poorly. I donated to both his ill-fated Mayday PAC and his ill-fated presidential campaign last year. He is a selfless guy who is trying to address the root cause of US political dysfunction. I wish him the best of luck in his future projects.

Donald Trump has spent far less money than any presidential candidate in recent history. I am hopeful that this election will finally illustrate to people like Larry Lessig that there are worse things in politics than money. Money is just a tool.

Just because you found an example of a politician making it fairly far (but probably not even getting elected) without the support of the rich does not mean that money in politics isn't a problem.

In America, there are two kinds of politicians who can get by without wealthy donors:

1. grassroots candidates who go viral, who can get big social media followings and lots of organic non-ad media

2. independently rich people, who can simply bankroll their own campaigns

Bernie Sanders is an example of #1. Ross Perot is an example of #2. Donald Trump is, to an extent, both #1 and #2!

Most politicians in the US, both in Congress and at the state level, are neither #1 nor #2. They depend on donors who typically write $1000+ checks, every single election cycle. As a result, they spend a shocking amount of their time talking to rich people.

It's called Call Time, and for the average congressperson, it's about four hours per day: https://www.washingtonpost.com/news/wonk/wp/2013/01/14/the-m...

--

When people like Lawrence Lessig or Bernie talk about "getting money out of politics", they are not referring to third-world style quid pro quo corruption. They are not talking about an envelope of cash passed under a restaurant table.

They are talking about something more subtle that's absolutely pervasive in modern US politics: career politicians whose continued employment depends on their ability to raise money, who every day meet and hear from the wealthiest crust of their constituency.

When you spend four hours every day on the phone with the kind of people who might write a $2700 max-allowable-donation check for some representative's re-election campaign, it affects your thinking. Donor issues are always top of mind. How you vote on that pipeline bill today is going to make it either a lot easier or a lot harder to talk to those twenty or thirty guys you have to call next week, asking for money.

Re: On the wikileak-ed emails from Tanden on Lessig

#62
post #10

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> Donald-lets-silence-my-critics-Trump As opposed to Hillary-lets-coopt-the-media-and-bribe-my-potential-critics-Clinton? I hate Donald Trump, but dismissing evidence because of the source is clearly misguided.

How you are downvoted for stating that is a sign of partisanship or ignorance on this message board.

I didn't expect it either. First I got a couple upvotes, then downvoted heavily, and now back up again :)

Re: On the wikileak-ed emails from Tanden on Lessig

#63
post #32

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Context for the remainder so you can know they aren't cherry-picked and your reading of whatever you get out of any of them is through your own bias alone and not Assange's, the NYT editorial team's or whoever else. You only need to trust that Assange will publish you don't have to care what he thinks about anything else.

This would be more convincing if Assange wasn't always talking up the next batch, the contingency files, etc. Not only is he withholding publication, but he's bragging about it, which really does make it hard to believe he's just passing everything along.

ok so your problem is as a publisher he shouldn't promote his publication. And he by doing so he's withholding publication of something unspecified that we can't know about.

I'll disagree with that and get on with life.

Re: On the wikileak-ed emails from Tanden on Lessig

#64

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> How could WikiLeaks be interpreted as anything other than promoting civil liberties? Its sole purpose ... Perhaps taken at face value that's true, but I judge them by their actions: * They consistently advocate for one political point of view, an anti-US government one. Where are leaks about Putin? Bernie Sanders? Jill Stein? For comparison, the NY Times is hard on both candidates: For example, they both broke the…

Wikileaks can only publish what they are given. If nobody gives them leaks on Putin, Sanders etc. they can't publish any.

A good point, but how do we know it's true? Does Wikileaks solicit material? Are they selective about what they publish?

I see what they claim to do, but it's too important to take at face value.

Re: On the wikileak-ed emails from Tanden on Lessig

#65

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Allow me to save anyone reading this thread some time: the assertion about Clinton wanting to drone strike Assange remains unsubstantiated, as the parent comment acknowledges. I didn't assert anything about any of the other random stuff you're mentioning.

Instead of being incredibly rude and insulting, next time if you don't follow somebody's argument, try to read it again and try to make sense of it. It does make sense in this case. I did write that out quickly though, and it is a bit disjointed and quickly-written. Still, I think you should be able to follow along and grasp the points. I think you're being disingenuous that you can't, maybe because you don't want to…

If you don't address my point, and instead go on long non sequitur tangents, there is no discussion to be had.

Re: On the wikileak-ed emails from Tanden on Lessig

#66

Earlier quoted context omitted.

The blogger had a full-time job. The blogging was just a side thing. Neera denies having him fired (as opposed to the org firing him on their on decision). Source: http://www.slate.com/articles/news_and_politics/politics/201...

The blogger was subsequently fired from the full-time position. Neera lies, a lot: http://coreyrobin.com/2016/06/25/neera-and-me-two-theses-abo...

Citation for the first claim?

Re: On the wikileak-ed emails from Tanden on Lessig

#67
post #2

I used to respect what Assanage is doing. But recently its clear his actions aren't some noble crusade to speak truth to power and promote freedom of speech and otherwise promote civil liberties. If that were the point then he would leak whatever he has whenever he gets it instead of trying to time it to affect the election. If he really believed in the causes he claims to believe in then he wouldn't be trying to get…

Please just stop. Have we really become so blindly partisan as a nation that we complain about uneven distribution of evidence of corruption rather than the corruption itself? Ponder that for a moment, please.

But Trump bad! Clinton good. Get us some leaks too.

Re: On the wikileak-ed emails from Tanden on Lessig

#68

Earlier quoted context omitted.

The blogger was subsequently fired from the full-time position. Neera lies, a lot: http://coreyrobin.com/2016/06/25/neera-and-me-two-theses-abo...

Citation for the first claim?

Twitter. Unfortunately, I don't have a link handy. You can also go to the blogger's personal site and find his resume showing an end of full-time employment.

There were a number of people who did not like his combative style in disproving liberals' claims, who banded together to complain to his full time employer.

Re: On the wikileak-ed emails from Tanden on Lessig

#69
post #39

While Lessig is gracious here, I don't have to be. Tanden and Podesta are representative of what will become the Clinton white house. This sort of rhetoric indicates where they, and Clinton, stand on a variety of interconnected issues, from money in politics to lobbying and outright corruption. Lessig has done more than almost anyone to champion the idea of separating money from politics. To many, he is a hero. To Ta…

>While Lessig is gracious here, I don't have to be. You don't have to be, but it might have been a good idea to do so given there's always the chance one is missing a bit of history, like you (and some of the other comments in this thread) are demonstrating here. The post-hoc heroification of Lessig is somewhat sickening on a technical forum given how badly he blew it Eldred vs. Ashcroft with exactly the sort of Mr.…

Thanks for the history lesson. It was valuable, though from what I understand, it's separate from the motivation for the Tanden/Podesta conversation on display here.

Re: On the wikileak-ed emails from Tanden on Lessig

#70
post #61

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Donald Trump has spent far less money than any presidential candidate in recent history. I am hopeful that this election will finally illustrate to people like Larry Lessig that there are worse things in politics than money. Money is just a tool.

Just because you found an example of a politician making it fairly far (but probably not even getting elected) without the support of the rich does not mean that money in politics isn't a problem. In America, there are two kinds of politicians who can get by without wealthy donors: 1. grassroots candidates who go viral, who can get big social media followings and lots of organic non-ad media 2. independently rich peo…

Congress is not uniquely problematic because members of Congress have to raise money. Everyone has to raise money. Larry Lessig has had to raise money many times in his career.

There are two reasons that members of Congress have to spend so much time raising money.

First, there are strict limits on federal campaign contributions. Candidates can only get up to $2,700 from each person per cycle, and no money from organizations at all. Nonprofit guys like Bill McKibben or Grover Norquist can land $100,000 in one meeting. It will take a federal candidate at least 37 individual donors to get the same amount.

I'm not saying the limits are bad. I think they are good. But they have side effects.

Second, people don't want to give money to politicians, so it takes a ton of time and energy to get even small donations.

And here is where Lessig and others have been so counter-productive. They think they're making the sort of subtle argument that you describe. They think they're firing people up for action. But what they've actually done is promulgate 2 simple messages: 1) Money In Politics Is Bad, and 2) The System Is So Broken You Can't Win.

Both these messages discourage their fans from engaging effectively in political and civic institutions--thereby making things even worse for themselves. Lessig told all his fans that money is bad and politics is unwinnable... of course he's having trouble creating a political movement!

Post reply on HN