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

Re: Larry Lessig: I'm All In

#131

Post by hga » Sat, Oct 17, 2015, 3:44 PM UTC

logn wrote: post #126

Lessig is not thinking this through. If he wants to be taken seriously as a candidate he's going to need to address every single issue the others have. By the time he's done that, his message will be diluted and sidetracked, and he'll have groups of people who may support him on the corruption issue but disagree on other issues, e.g., how to handle Syria. At this point he kind of reminds me of Donald Trump who also h…

He's just laid out legislation to pass

Errr, as far as I know he hasn't entirely done that. From his web site, https://lessig2016.us/the-plan/ he has two specific "Equal Right to Vote" laws plus "In addition, we will enact automatic voter registration and turn election day into a national holiday." Then there's a Ranked Choice Voting item with specific language, but the third item is not specific, and as other discussions here have noted, here the devil is in the details:

CITIZEN FUNDED ELECTIONS

All citizens deserve an equal ability to choose our leaders.

The Citizen Equality Act will end pay-to-play politics by changing the way we fund campaigns by taking the best of Rep. Sarbanes’ Government by the People Act, and Represent.US’s “American Anti-Corruption Act.” That hybrid would give every voter a voucher to contribute to fund congressional and presidential campaigns; it would provide matching funds for small-dollar contributions to congressional and presidential campaigns. And it would add effective new limits to restrict the revolving door between government service and work as a lobbyist.

Re: Larry Lessig: I'm All In

#132

Post by jjoonathan » Sat, Oct 17, 2015, 3:45 PM UTC

JackFr wrote: post #113

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…

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.

And what about politicians who give money to corporations by limiting the scope of government (see: deregulating energy markets -> Enron buys up capacity and shuts it down -> rolling blackouts and $$ in their pockets as prices spiked)?

Regulations aren't the only cause of friction, perverse incentives, and exploitative business models. They're also pretty much the only tool we have against tragedies of the commons. Deciding which regulations are good and which are bad is inherently ideological, and the declaration that we should generally assume they're bad is so extreme that Adam Smith himself would disapprove.

Re: Larry Lessig: I'm All In

#133

Post by unethical_ban » Sat, Oct 17, 2015, 3:48 PM UTC

JackFr wrote: post #113

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…

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.

It enrages me that you got downvoted, because I've thought this for almost as long as I've had political thought. Corporations and lobbyists would stop buying politicians if the scope of power were limited.

Re: Larry Lessig: I'm All In

#134

Post by jkestner » Sat, Oct 17, 2015, 3:50 PM UTC

humanrebar wrote: post #116

wyldfire wrote: post #108

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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…

States are usually good testbeds for new ideas. Arizona has had "Clean Elections" with public money for 20 years and it works well.

Re: Larry Lessig: I'm All In

#135

Post by gonehome » Sat, Oct 17, 2015, 4:14 PM UTC

gonehome wrote: post #29

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…

Not really - The premise of Lessig's campaign is that the party in power is irrelevant, neither can do it because they're both corrupted by their need to raise funds (and notably that the people funding them are not the public). This is partly why his ideas to fix it seem drastic - there really aren't any non drastic solutions that can work. https://www.ted.com/talks/lawrence_lessig_we_the_people_and_... It has nothi…

As a follow up - I like Lessig a lot and agree with most of his ideas. The tragic thing is that politics isn't really idea driven at scale, it's more controversy and 'alpha monkey' driven. Lessig comes off as a quiet and reasonable academic - he needs somebody as his front man that can be more forceful that the media will give more attention to (though I do think his presentations are really good).

Re: Larry Lessig: I'm All In

#136

Post by jellicle » Sat, Oct 17, 2015, 4:19 PM UTC

humanrebar wrote: post #58

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…

> Having a single party in total control like that would be destructive to our country, no matter how you spin it. I'd argue it has been destructive to our country. Specifically with the way healthcare reform was passed. All democrats by the slimmest margin. Absolutely no wider support for one of the biggest changes in our country in a long time, as far as domestic policy goes. The result? More fighting than before.…

You seem confused about cause and effect. The GOP started their policy of total obstructionism (no votes for any Democratic policies, period, regardless of merit) in December 2008, immediately after the elections. There were caucus meetings where this plan was laid out by leadership and agreed to by all members.

I don't think you can blame the passage of the ACA in 2009 for an obstruction policy begun in 2008. Time only flows in one direction, as far as I know.

If you were less ignorant about the subject, you would probably realize that the ACA passage without much Republican support was the result of Republican obstruction policies, not the cause of them.

Re: Larry Lessig: I'm All In

#137

Post by GavinMcG » Sat, Oct 17, 2015, 4:23 PM UTC

irishcoffee wrote: post #117

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…

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.

When are you talking about? If it's Obama's first term, "complete" control would be a bit off – only 56 Dems in the Senate, and two left-leaning independents. Some aisle-crossing Republicans were needed for major legislation to pass.

And major legislation certainly did pass:

- Obamacare

- American Recovery and Reinvestment Act (the stimulus package)

- Dodd-Frank

- Fair Sentencing Act

- Repeal of Don't Ask, Don't Tell

- Lily Ledbetter Fair Pay Act

more: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/111th_United_States_Congress#M...

Re: Larry Lessig: I'm All In

#138

Post by hga » Sat, Oct 17, 2015, 4:36 PM UTC

jellicle wrote: post #136

humanrebar wrote: post #58

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. I'd argue it has been destructive to our country. Specifically with the way healthcare reform was passed. All democrats by the slimmest margin. Absolutely no wider support for one of the biggest changes in our country in a long time, as far as domestic policy goes. The result? More fighting than before.…

You seem confused about cause and effect. The GOP started their policy of total obstructionism (no votes for any Democratic policies, period, regardless of merit) in December 2008, immediately after the elections. There were caucus meetings where this plan was laid out by leadership and agreed to by all members. I don't think you can blame the passage of the ACA in 2009 for an obstruction policy begun in 2008. Time o…

I think that deserves a Citation Needed, seeing as how I don't remember that, and to double check on the putative effect, I drilled down in Wikipedia's list of 15 major enacted laws for 2009 (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/111th_United_States_Congress#E...) and found that 8 were passed with large bipartisan majorities in both houses, 2 with large Senate bipartisan majorities.

Re: Larry Lessig: I'm All In

#139

Post by qrendel » Sat, Oct 17, 2015, 4:46 PM UTC

crdoconnor wrote: post #94

komaromy wrote: post #89

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Obama came into office with the same idea, then expended pretty much all of his political capital on passing the ACA. Lessig's plan seems to be on the same order.

>Obama came into office with the same idea Obama's ideas were never made very clear during his campaign. It was all "hope" and "change" and not a whole lot on policy specifics. He then went and implemented the same neoliberal bullshit that George Bush pushed with a slightly different flavor.

And that's a big part of what makes me continue to support Lessig over Sanders. Remembering how great Obama sounded in 2008, and seeing how that turned out, I give it a very high chance Sanders would be exactly the same.

Now we have a Nobel peace price winning president who regularly orders extrajudicial assassinations and prosecutes anyone blowing the whistle on the runaway national security/military-industrial complexes. So much for "the most transparent administration in history," the guy who was going to close Gitmo and stop the serial wars all across the Middle East.

Re: Larry Lessig: I'm All In

#140

Post by AnthonyMouse » Sat, Oct 17, 2015, 4:48 PM UTC

rayiner wrote: post #121

wyldfire wrote: post #108

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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."

Public financing is totally orthogonal to Citizens United. Even if campaigns were publicly financed, you couldn't stop independent organizations from blasting the airwaves with advertising supporting their preferred candidate.

> Even if campaigns were publicly financed, you couldn't stop independent organizations from blasting the airwaves with advertising supporting their preferred candidate.

In theory there could be a large tax on broadcasting/advertising with the proceeds going equally to every declared candidate who can meet some threshold number of constituent signatures. Then the more money people spend on political advertising, the more each politician gets to respond to it, but the entire scheme is content-neutral.