Hacker News Board Hacker News, browsed like a classic message board
Live data from Hacker News

Larry Lessig: I'm All In

theatlantic.com

Post reply on HN
Print view View original

21–30 of 167 posts

Re: Larry Lessig: I'm All In

#21

Post by djhn »

AlwaysBCoding wrote: post #5
jacobolus wrote: post #2

> But it weakened the credibility of the campaign. Was I really trying to be president? Or was I just trying to make a point? Obvious answer: he’s just trying to make a point, the whole thing is a publicity stunt, and his campaign has never had and still does not have any credibility whatsoever. > But the result was almost no national media focused on a campaign that was actually more viable than that of at least two…

The thing is though, Lessig is completely right. Members of Congress spend 70% of their time raising money. They're not lawmakers, they're professional fundraisers. Think of a startup whose founders spent 70% of their time raising money, they would never get anything done. And since fundraising is now such an integral part of a Congressman's day to day, they have two classes of constitutes to think about: the voters,…

> Members of Congress spend 70% of their time raising money. They're not lawmakers, they're professional fundraisers.

> they would never get anything done

You will have a hard time convincing HN that what US needs are more laws, especially at a rate limited by time available to politicians for writing them!

Broadly speaking limits on campaign donations are fairly small (Max $5k) and average donation sums ($100-200) are extremely small. You will need anywhere from 2-8 million to run for Congress, about 25 million to run for Senate.

As an entrepreneur, what do you call it when you raise capital of several million from hundreds or thousands of investors? That's right, you call it revenue, and you call those investors your customers.

It's a weird model, but the US system makes a fundraising politician to personally talk to thousands and thousands of his constituents and reach out to 10-fold that figure to gauge interest. That has a significant positive side-effect of the politician being intimately familiar with their biggest concerns and often even smaller, local or personal problems that need fixing. After all, if you want to be a great salesman, you better know the customer very well.

Re: Larry Lessig: I'm All In

#22

Post by jacobolus »

bsimpson wrote: post #18
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…

Isn't "fairer" roughly coterminous with "more likely to get people I like elected"? I don't trust one major political party to draw unbiased boundaries any more than I trust the other.

“Fairer” in this case means “composition of each state’s congressional delegation roughly represents the composition of political affiliation among the state’s citizens, and elections are reasonably competitive in areas with mixed support”. Currently, there is no question that the Republican Party has a significant structural advantage in Congress due to the gerrymandered district boundaries in states they controlled after the 2010 census. Moreover, most congressional districts are extremely safe for one party or the other, encouraging candidates to run for office on radicalized anti-compromise platforms. My personal preference would be to see districts drawn in a neutral way.

The green states in this picture use an independent commission to draw districts, https://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/4/4d/Redistri... It would be nice if more of the yellow states (redistricting controlled by the legislature) would switch to independent commissions.

Re: Larry Lessig: I'm All In

#23

Post by crdoconnor »

AlwaysBCoding wrote: post #5
jacobolus wrote: post #2

> But it weakened the credibility of the campaign. Was I really trying to be president? Or was I just trying to make a point? Obvious answer: he’s just trying to make a point, the whole thing is a publicity stunt, and his campaign has never had and still does not have any credibility whatsoever. > But the result was almost no national media focused on a campaign that was actually more viable than that of at least two…

The thing is though, Lessig is completely right. Members of Congress spend 70% of their time raising money. They're not lawmakers, they're professional fundraisers. Think of a startup whose founders spent 70% of their time raising money, they would never get anything done. And since fundraising is now such an integral part of a Congressman's day to day, they have two classes of constitutes to think about: the voters,…

Any other election he'd have been right. This time there's Bernie Sanders, who is pretty much the first presidential candidate to support common sense laws.

He raises money from lots of small donors with interests like you and me rather than a few big donors with interests diametrically opposed to you and me.

Re: Larry Lessig: I'm All In

#24

Post by solipsism »

javajosh wrote: post #14

I feel sad because I'm probably Lessig's ideal target audience, but I don't like any of this. I don't like that he backed down so quickly from his first approach, because of the polls. Isn't that what corrupt politicians do? I don't like that he is so vague about what he's going to do to fix corruption - I get it that it's about taking money out of politics, but how do you get there, especially when Congress is seize…

I don't like that he is so vague about what he's going to do to fix corruption - I get it that it's about taking money out of politics, but how do you get there, especially when Congress is seized up?

If he were to be elected he would have a very strong mandate to fight for the reforms he proposes -- a strong enough mandate that Congress might be forced to adhere to it. If the people put Lessig in the Presidency it's pretty clear what the people want. A Democratic congressperson or senator who voted against such reforms would surely be risking his/her job. The same might even be said for TeaPartiers.

Regarding everything else... he claims most of it won't happen because the system is rigged. Most good causes like the ones you list could never command the singular and focused attention from the people it would take to defeat the powers that oppose them, even if the people generally would be in favor. We don't have a referendum system. That's his whole point -- to hack one in. I think it's still his point, he's just realizing that he has to play politics to do it.

Re: Larry Lessig: I'm All In

#25

Post by brianclements »

smacktoward wrote: post #3

> This change now sharpens the difference between our campaign and the others. Now the strongest contrast in substance is the priority that I give to democratic reform. This difference should then press an obvious question for every other candidate: How do you expect to achieve what you are promising without this reform? And if you believe this reform is necessary, then why isn’t it your first priority? But in all th…

> But in all these words he never gets around to explaining how as President he would actually make the reform happen, other than saying it'd be his "first priority" and (twice) that he would "work with Congress."

That's about as exact as any politician gets on the campaign trail. They say no plan survives enemy contact? I'd include that no path to achieving a campaign promise survives the election. By swear-in time, a large chunk of congress is brand new and it's an entirely different game of chess when you actually get in there.

> Lessig is such a paradox to me. His heart's in the right place, he's clearly earnest, and he's managed to accomplish some remarkable things, like Creative Commons. But every time he wades into electoral politics he does so in ways that are so desperately naïve that they'd be funny, if the stakes weren't so high. It's Mr. Bean Goes To Washington.

If running a country was based solely on the ability to understand complex problems and provide novel solutions, I'd say Lessig is a top candidate among US citizens to run our country. But unfortunately, before any of that gets to happen, someone needs to get elected. And you must first play The Game before you can get a crack at getting something positive done. And therein lies the problem. How can one play the a game that runs counter to the fiber of their being? Yes he's running, but he is not playing The Game.

Re: Larry Lessig: I'm All In

#26

Post by AlwaysBCoding »

djhn wrote: post #21
AlwaysBCoding wrote: post #5

Earlier quoted context omitted.

The thing is though, Lessig is completely right. Members of Congress spend 70% of their time raising money. They're not lawmakers, they're professional fundraisers. Think of a startup whose founders spent 70% of their time raising money, they would never get anything done. And since fundraising is now such an integral part of a Congressman's day to day, they have two classes of constitutes to think about: the voters,…

> Members of Congress spend 70% of their time raising money. They're not lawmakers, they're professional fundraisers. > they would never get anything done You will have a hard time convincing HN that what US needs are more laws, especially at a rate limited by time available to politicians for writing them! Broadly speaking limits on campaign donations are fairly small (Max $5k) and average donation sums ($100-200) a…

The "limit" on campaign donations is a complete farce though. Let's look at Jeb Bush. Jeb stated multiple times that he wasn't running for president in 2016, and instead started a Super PAC that let him raise uncapped campaign donations, and ultimately raised over $100 million. Then he announces that he had a change of heart, was indeed going to run for president, and gave control of his Super PAC to a friend of his. And now he has $100 million to play with, fuck that $5k limit, and the voters/peasants who would donate it.

Re: Larry Lessig: I'm All In

#27

Post by AlwaysBCoding »

enjo wrote: post #17
AlwaysBCoding wrote: post #5

Earlier quoted context omitted.

The thing is though, Lessig is completely right. Members of Congress spend 70% of their time raising money. They're not lawmakers, they're professional fundraisers. Think of a startup whose founders spent 70% of their time raising money, they would never get anything done. And since fundraising is now such an integral part of a Congressman's day to day, they have two classes of constitutes to think about: the voters,…

Think of a startup whose founders spent 70% of their time raising money, they would never get anything done. That's a bad example. For even a relatively early stage startup, raising money is the actual job description for a typical startup CEO. They probably spend more than 70% of their time on it. It doesn't invalidate your point at all, however. Lawmakers are not startup CEO's. By providing every incentive to simpl…

yeah like a five person team who's CEO spends 70% of time fundraising is probably fine. But an ENTIRE team that spends 70% of their time fundraising perpetually would be about as effective as Congress actually is.

Re: Larry Lessig: I'm All In

#28

Post by Asbostos »

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?

Re: Larry Lessig: I'm All In

#29

Post by gonehome »

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…

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 nothing to do with which party is in power - the affect of fundraising has corrupted the underlying incentives of the entire congress.

I found his book on the topic pretty convincing: http://republic.lessig.org/

Re: Larry Lessig: I'm All In

#30

Post by venomsnake »

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.}.

Okay - but why Middle East and Russia need handling? With the shell gas boom US is on its way to energy independence.

Middle east is irreparable mess, the US president is not all powerful. Russia is big but regional power (for now). Europe should learn to take care of itself (Disclaimer - I am citizen of EU nation).

Post reply on HN