Larry Lessig: I'm All In • Hacker News Board

Re: Larry Lessig: I'm All In

#111

Post by Bud » Sat, Oct 17, 2015, 2:36 PM UTC

humanrebar wrote: post #95

Bud wrote: post #75

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Huh? 60% support in Congress plus the support of the President plus the support of the Supreme Court (when the ACA was tested there) plus the overwhelming support of the American people wasn't good enough for you? Under what circumstances, then, WOULD you be able to accept that health care reform was a good idea and a good thing to pass? The constant infighting caused by Republicans is a result of their corporate mas…

60% is too low of a bar. 40% of a country vehemently disagreeing with a big change is a big deal. That's why the amendment process exists and is supposed to be used.

The amendment process isn't relevant here. Republicans were completely opposed to any version of Obamacare; amending it wouldn't have fixed matters for them. They were opposed in principle to any large new federal system to make it easier for citizens to buy health insurance.

Are you perhaps referring to Constitutional amendments?

Re: Larry Lessig: I'm All In

#112

Post by bsimpson » Sat, Oct 17, 2015, 2:37 PM UTC

Asbostos wrote: post #28

bsimpson wrote: post #6

It'll be interesting to hear his foreign policy. He's probably the smartest guy running, and the least corrupt. That said, I'd have a hard time voting for someone whose only official job is to be the Commander-in-Chief of the armed forces and whose only platform is to be a placeholder representing the concept of reform. I want to know how he's gonna handle {the Middle East, Russia, etc.}.

Does it matter how he'd handle those other issues if he gets his reform done? You seem to be saying that continuity in handling those issues in a way you like is more important than the reform he's proposing. Wouldn't it be worth having a few years of "bad" foreign policy in exchange for a whole future of reform?

Yeah, it does. It's pretty damned important to trust that the Commander-in-Chief would be a competent leader of the armed forces. How would he respond to an act of war? What would he do to stabilize the Middle East and neutralize ISIS?

Of course every outsider wants reform. It's nice to see a smart person thinking creatively about how to achieve it. Still, you don't get to be Commander-in-Chief unless you can instill trust that you can handle being Commander-in-Chief.

Re: Larry Lessig: I'm All In

#113

Post by JackFr » Sat, Oct 17, 2015, 2:39 PM UTC

jacobolus wrote: post #16

Gotadime wrote: post #15

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Having a single party in total control like that would be destructive to our country, no matter how you spin it. Both parties have legitimate points and interests that need to be represented in our system. I have never understood individuals that buy in 100% to a single party and just can't fathom the idea of the opposing party having any good ideas that need to be heard. Radicalism of any kind is dangerous - conserv…

Campaign finance reform is dead in the water as long as the Republicans control Congress (and as long as, per Citizens United , unlimited corporate spending on political advertising is considered protected speech). So if we agree with Lessig that campaign finance reform is the most important national political priority, then electing a Democratic majority to the House is the necessary precondition. (I’m not saying yo…

If you want to keep corporations from giving money to politicians, the only effective way to do it is to stop politicians from giving corporations money.

Limiting the scope of government is not ideological -- its pragmatic and practical.

Re: Larry Lessig: I'm All In

#114

Post by [deleted] » Sat, Oct 17, 2015, 2:45 PM UTC

bsimpson wrote: post #6

It'll be interesting to hear his foreign policy. He's probably the smartest guy running, and the least corrupt. That said, I'd have a hard time voting for someone whose only official job is to be the Commander-in-Chief of the armed forces and whose only platform is to be a placeholder representing the concept of reform. I want to know how he's gonna handle {the Middle East, Russia, etc.}.

[deleted]

Re: Larry Lessig: I'm All In

#115

Post by morgante » Sat, Oct 17, 2015, 2:48 PM UTC

> This change now sharpens the difference between our campaign and the others.

Not really. Now he's just yet another candidate who has an issue they talk about more than the others. For Trump, it's immigration. For Sanders, it's wealth inequality.

Except he's a fringe candidate talking about an abstract issue which most people don't actually care about that much.

Re: Larry Lessig: I'm All In

#116

Post by humanrebar » Sat, Oct 17, 2015, 2:51 PM UTC

wyldfire wrote: post #108

hga wrote: post #92

Earlier quoted context omitted.

And people should really be thinking twice about the consequences of suppressing core political speech from those they don't like, be it a single citizen publishing a book (in oral arguments the government admitted that fell into the McCain-Feingold ban), an arbitrary group of citizens producing and distributing a video about a public figure running for office, or the eeeeevil NRA with its five million members amplif…

I agree with your all of your concerns. But what if all campaigns for office were funded with public money instead of private money? Seems like it would solve some of the stated problems without arguing over what some would call a "loophole" but others would recognize as "free speech."

It's a good idea, but I don't see how the details work.

Would the government give out money to anyone who ran? How do you stop someone from using the funds for an election campaign that is indistinguishable from an audition for FoxNews or MSNBC contributor? No matter what the bar is for funding, the government would be picking winners and losers, right?

Would you ban private donations to campaigns? What about private speech that advocates for a candidate?

I'm not sure what that public money buys us that other regulations couldn't do better.

If we're worried about getting information to voters, requiring all public debates be in the public domain and posted in standard web formats seems like a sensible first step.

Re: Larry Lessig: I'm All In

#117

Post by irishcoffee » Sat, Oct 17, 2015, 2:54 PM UTC

Gotadime wrote: post #15

jacobolus wrote: post #9

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Okay, but so what? Lessig has no chance of winning the Democratic Party nomination, so his campaign basically amounts to hijacking the primary to promote his message. Even if that message is “completely right”, so what? You think if Lessig gets a seat at the Democratic primary debates, he’ll be able to convince the Republicans in Congress to reverse course on campaign finance? Fat chance. The most likely way to impro…

Having a single party in total control like that would be destructive to our country, no matter how you spin it. Both parties have legitimate points and interests that need to be represented in our system. I have never understood individuals that buy in 100% to a single party and just can't fathom the idea of the opposing party having any good ideas that need to be heard. Radicalism of any kind is dangerous - conserv…

If memory serves, the Democrats had the POTUS, the House, and the Senate in complete control for 2 years. Didn't get anything done.

I may be incorrect about this, was a while ago.

Re: Larry Lessig: I'm All In

#118

Post by humanrebar » Sat, Oct 17, 2015, 3:03 PM UTC

Bud wrote: post #111

humanrebar wrote: post #95

Earlier quoted context omitted.

60% is too low of a bar. 40% of a country vehemently disagreeing with a big change is a big deal. That's why the amendment process exists and is supposed to be used.

The amendment process isn't relevant here. Republicans were completely opposed to any version of Obamacare; amending it wouldn't have fixed matters for them. They were opposed in principle to any large new federal system to make it easier for citizens to buy health insurance. Are you perhaps referring to Constitutional amendments?

Yes. Constitutional amendments require two kinds of super-majorities just for this reason. Even if technically an individual mandate didn't require a constitutional amendment (I believe it did), the spirit of the amendment process indicates that you should get 2/3 support to propose and 3/4 support to ratify fundamental changes to our government.

Re: Larry Lessig: I'm All In

#119

Post by hga » Sat, Oct 17, 2015, 3:03 PM UTC

wyldfire wrote: post #108

hga wrote: post #92

Earlier quoted context omitted.

And people should really be thinking twice about the consequences of suppressing core political speech from those they don't like, be it a single citizen publishing a book (in oral arguments the government admitted that fell into the McCain-Feingold ban), an arbitrary group of citizens producing and distributing a video about a public figure running for office, or the eeeeevil NRA with its five million members amplif…

I agree with your all of your concerns. But what if all campaigns for office were funded with public money instead of private money? Seems like it would solve some of the stated problems without arguing over what some would call a "loophole" but others would recognize as "free speech."

But what if all campaigns for office were funded with public money instead of private money?

Then the game changes to who gets allocated said public money. Can't see how that wouldn't entrench the establishment a zillion times more. Note Trump's effectiveness because he can ignore the Republican Party donor class riot, which is in stark opposition to the majority of the party's base.

For those eeeevil people who nonetheless managed to get some, prosecuting them for not following one of the zillions of non-statutory but still the force of law rules they will inevitably break. Using another example of fighting gun control (because I know the most about how this has played out since the early '70s), here's just one notorious example of how that "works" http://jpfo.org/filegen-a-m/cac-info.htm (note, that's from a very partisan group, not the milquetoast NRA). That's sort of thing is also happening in Connecticut right now post-Sandy Hook.

Ah, and a useful analogy from fighting gun control: a lot of the laws in place and proposed are, as Michael Bane put it, "flypaper laws", designed to trap the unwary in "crimes" entirely lacking in mens rea or any actual good public policy results, resulting in a chilling effect on Constitutionally protected actions.

Same exact thing here, "campaign reforms" by the goo-goos, especially financial ones, have a greater chilling effect on genuine citizen grassroots actions. You have to hire really good legal council, and surprise, surprise, pretty much all those lawyers are already retained by the existing political parties and their units. And even then we see atrocities like the political prosecutions of Tom Delay and Ted Stevens, eventually reversed by higher courts but not before accomplishing the mission of removing them from politics.

Re: Larry Lessig: I'm All In

#120

Post by rayiner » Sat, Oct 17, 2015, 3:08 PM UTC

humanrebar wrote: post #59

jacobolus wrote: post #16

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Campaign finance reform is dead in the water as long as the Republicans control Congress (and as long as, per Citizens United , unlimited corporate spending on political advertising is considered protected speech). So if we agree with Lessig that campaign finance reform is the most important national political priority, then electing a Democratic majority to the House is the necessary precondition. (I’m not saying yo…

> unlimited corporate spending on political advertising is considered protected speech Probably an unpopular opinion in this thread, but... It has always been protected speech. The Supreme Court just declined to make a distinction between The New York Times and an arbitrary group of citizens (or even a single citizen) doing a one-off publication.

Yup. Citizens United wasn't a "is money speech case?" It was a case about whether the government could ban an unflattering movie about one of the leading candidates in the election. Its core political speech and always has been.