Lessig On Corruption and Reform

Brian Stretch sends us to the National Review for an interview with Stanford professor Lawrence Lessig. Lessig talks about money, politics, money in politics, and his decision not to run for an open seat in Congress. From the interview: "Lessig hates corruption. He hates it so much, in fact, that last year he announced he'd be shifting away from his work on copyright and trademark law... to focus on it... 'One of the biggest targets of reform that we should be thinking about is how to blow up the FCC.'"

Comments

"Blow up" the FCC?

[Hal_Porter]

Is it just me or isn't he in danger being invited in for a "friendly chat" with the FBI? Remember kids - we live in less innocent times and rhetorical excesses can seriously mess up your day.

FCC moves aim to curry favor of future employers

[SpaceWanderer]

I thought this was interesting. Found it on Lessig's blog. Basically, FCC employees brown-nose prospective future employers by decreeing public policies that benefits those future employers.

The wires are sparking with news of the GAO report (pdf) that FCC insiders routinely tipped lobbyists and corporate insiders about agency agenda decisions before they were made public. This is critical, because under agency "sunshine rules," FCC members can't be lobbied for the week between the public announcement of an agenda and the meeting. Knowing what's going to be announced on the agenda in advance thus gives lobbyists and corporate insiders an opportunity to lobby before the sun[shine rules] rise. From the report: FCC generally followed the rulemaking process in the four case studies of completed rulemakings that GAO reviewed, but several stakeholders had access to nonpublic information. Specifically, each of the four rulemakings included steps as required by law and opportunities for public participation. Within the case studies, most ex parte filings complied with FCC rules. However, in the case studies and in discussions with other stakeholders that regularly participate in FCC rulemakings, multiple stakeholders generally knew when the commission scheduled votes on proposed rules well before FCC notified the public. FCC rules prohibit disclosing this information outside of FCC. Other stakeholders said that they cannot learn when rules are scheduled for a vote until FCC releases the public meeting agenda, at which time FCC rules prohibit stakeholders from lobbying FCC. As a result, stakeholders with advance information about which rules are scheduled for a vote would know when it is most effective to lobby FCC, while stakeholders without this information would not. When I commented upon this to a colleague, his response was typical: "What do you expect? And anyway, so what? What's wrong with giving affected parties a bit more time to make their case?" "What's wrong" first is that the rules say otherwise. "What's wrong" second is that the rules are bent in a completely predictable way. Agency insiders curry favor with precisely the people they'll be getting a job with after they leave the FCC. And "what's wrong" third is just what this indicates about the kinds of bending we might expect goes on inside the FCC. If the agency is willing to bend the rules to favor futures employers, are they willing to put the thumb on the scale in difficult contested policy determinations? But my colleague was right about one thing: "What do [I] expect?" Here's an agency chaired by a former lobbyist. Is it likely to be scrupulous about rules meant to constrain or balance the lobbying process? This example is just one many that is our government. (As I'm learning as I work through the extraordinary reading list compiled by my Read-Write readers at the Lessig Wiki on Corruption. But it needs to become a bigger issue for the candidates in this election. Let's hear a promise by the presidential candidates that they will only appoint FCC commissioners who promise not to work for those they have regulated for at least 5 years after their term is over. That would be real change.

Re:Why not run it?

[HaeMaker]

Obama sought out Lessig for his technology policy! If Lessig gives him a reasonable road map to implement the FCC-related portions of the technology plan, he can easily get an appointment, and there is NOW WAY the democratic congress is going to reject his appointment...unless his nanny is an illegal immigrant.

Re:I would have moved...

[dido]

FTA:

NRO: Why did you decide not to run for Congress?

Lessig: The race was a special election being held on April 8. It became clear it was going to be impossible to achieve any recognition of the campaign or the issues in 30 days. The fear was that a failure would be an indictment of the reform movement.

There may be yet another campaign for Lessig in Congress. More power to him then!

Re:You won't get the money out of politics...

[bytesex]

You mean, other than Nokia, oil, hydro, oil, Erikson, Nilfisk, oil, Volvo, oil, Saab, oil, boats, drilling rigs, construction, oil, Ikea, Maersk, oil, and oil, they have no economy ? Sure.

Re:You won't get the money out of politics...

[lastninja]

We have other types of corruption, nepotism for example is rampant here in Sweden. Also it should be remembered that the laws that our government passes seldom affects business decisions, they are mostly to control the people. So there is rather small reason to try and bribe anyone. unlike France where the people are relativly free from government control but where business is heavyly regulated.

Re:You won't get the money out of politics...

[krasmussen]

A bit of facts.

GDP per capita 2007:
Norway: 47,098
United States: 44,765
Iceland: 41,680
Denmark: 38,438
Finland: 37,957
Sweden: 36,687

What made the government grow

[westlake]

Back in the 19th Century, the most a legislator could do was maybe bring some funding back for a new post office, roads, or at most a military installation. Government, especially at the federal level, did little else.

You have just described a government that is wholly absorbed in building a national infrastructure.

If your constituents lived on the Atlantic or Gulf coasts, the Great Lakes, they wanted a lighthouse, a customs station, a ship canal. "Internal improvements" as they called it in those days.

This was never a penny-ante operation.

The federal government was employing 14,000 postal workers as early as 1841.

What made the government grow

Re:Vague?!? Surely you jest.

[swillden]

Libertarianism's answers are often simple, but their justification of these answers very often uses vague a priori logic.

That may be the case, but you failed to provide any evidence for the assertion.

For example, libertarians say that we shouldn't regulate against monopoly, because monopolies are actually always caused by government intervention... somehow or other.

Did the Libertarian article you were reading on this topic actually fail to say how the monopolies are caused by government intervention? Or did you just stop reading? Taking the example of the monopoly most often discussed on /., Microsoft's business model is entirely dependent upon copyright, patent and trademark law. Without government support, Microsoft wouldn't exist.

Or, we should legalize competing currencies, as the US monetary system is going to collapse... any day now.

Libertarians wouldn't say we should legalize competing currencies because the US monetary system is going to collapse. They'd say we should legalize competing currencies because that maximizes individual liberty -- people and organizations should have the option to issue their own currency if they want to, and other people should have the right to choose whether or not they want to use it.

As the GP said -- whether or not Libertarianism is workable is a question worthy of debate, but the philosophy is built on such simple, easy-to-apply axioms that it most definitely is not vague, and if the logic appears "a priori", that's probably because the speaker assumes it's well-understood and therefore doesn't need to be explained.