Larry Lessig Reaches Funding Goal and Is Running For President

LetterRip writes: Lessig has met his funding goal of one million dollars, and thus is committed to run for President. ABC reports: "After exceeding his $1 million crowd-funding goal, Harvard Law School professor Larry Lessig announced today on “This Week” that he is running for president. 'I think I'm running to get people to acknowledge the elephant in the room,' he told ABC’s George Stephanopoulos. 'We have to recognize -- we have a government that does not work. The stalemate, partisan platform of American politics in Washington right now doesn't work.'”

Comments

Lessig is Runnig?

[Irate Engineer]

Spell check much, Slashdot editors?

Re:Lessig is Runnig?

[Anonymous Coward]

I think they were jokig.

Re:Lessig is Runnig?

[LetterRip]

The typo is my fault, sorry - the 'spelling error' highlighting either wasn't working or I overlooked it when I submitted - doh!

Interestingly he did do editing. I only submitted the first sentence and didn't have the link inline. He found the second source, quoted the explanatory paragraph, and added the linking.

Re:Lessig is Runnig?

[Calydor]

Because on Slashdot we are all luddites that don't trust technology to automate anything, let alone checking for proper spelling of words!

Re:Lessig is Runnig?

[MrKaos]

Interestingly he did do editing

Slashdot "editing" is not editing as the rest of the world understands it.

It's editing Jim, but not as we know it.

Re:How is this

[pijokela]

If it is not for nerds, then who is it for? Certainly nerds are the only people that will potentially vote for Lessig?

Re:How is this

[fustakrakich]

Uh oh! Fanboi alert!

Media attention

[mukinrestak]

He won't be able to affect shit without media attention to his campaign. Guess what the media won't be giving him. Maybe if he had 500 million in funding, enough to run ad campaigns in influential districts, he could make a difference, but for now the only people that will hear his message are those of us that already agree with it.

Re:Media attention

[udippel]

Thanks for confirming that something is very wrong with the system!

Re:How is this

[pr0nbot]

I suppose it's "news for nerds" in the sense that:
* they're using a more publicly accessible technology for funding than we're used to in politics
* Lessig is a member of the FSF and EFF, which are institutions that matter to nerds mainly
* he's active in stuff that matters to software nerds like IPR

I don't care for the guy

[fustakrakich]

"Campaign Reform" is not reform. If his campaign was honest, he would help people learn to tune out the the big money and not be so starstruck by bling. His whole shtick is typical politics, money and all.

Re:I don't care for the guy

[PopeRatzo]

If his campaign was honest, he would help people learn to tune out the the big money and not be so starstruck by bling.

He's hacking the election, not human nature.

Re:I don't care for the guy

[fustakrakich]

He's doing no such thing. He's just another player. And besides, as long as 'human' nature remains as it is, nothing about the electoral process is going to change either. It is after all, run by humans.

Re:I don't care for the guy

[fche]

"change change change": motte
"outlaw some political speech": bailey

See also http://slatestarcodex.com/2014...

Lessig is hard to listen to

[IamTheRealMike]

I watched the TV interview. I'm not American but US politics has a way of affecting everyone, so I think it's cool what he's trying to do.

That said, I think he needs to practice his TV interviewing style a bit. He spoke VERY fast, sounded kind of shrill, and the tumble of words didn't communicate as much as I expected given their quantity. There were a lot of things that sounded like generic political soundbites any candidate might say. The basic ideas of political reform are solid - he could slow down, hit one or two points solidly and then stop.

There are a few other issues I don't really understand.

The main one is that he's strongly Democrat. For reasons I don't fully understand (electoral college mumble mumble) it seems US candidates cannot ever be independent, they have to pick a side. So that's going to cause issues right there. Reform of Washington should be a bi-partisan issue: I had expected him to run as an independent and then resign and trigger fresh elections once his platform was passed. That way anyone could feel secure voting for him. But I guess that sort of thing isn't possible.

The other is that surely he it takes more than one man to deliver the reforms he wants. Why isn't he creating a political party rather than running for President? This must be the only-two-parties rule again? I heard once that there are more than just Dems and Reps in the US political system but I never hear much about them.

Re:Lessig is hard to listen to

[stinerman]

Why isn't he creating a political party rather than running for President? This must be the only-two-parties rule again? I heard once that there are more than just Dems and Reps in the US political system but I never hear much about them.

The reason why is because it's dead easy to run as one of the major parties and use their ballot line. In some states it is practically too late to try to start a new party or run as an independent; it's an incredibly time-consuming and resource-draining process. If he runs as a Democrat, he's on the ballot in all 50 states and DC. If he runs as an indy, he might be able to reach somewhere in the 30-40 state range.

Unlike the UK (which I'm assuming you're from just because that's the easiest assumption), where a few signatures and a deposit gets you on the ballot, here each state has different rules, and most states unabashedly try to keep independents or minor party candidates off the ballots with unequal laws.

Re:Lessig is hard to listen to

[sjames]

He can't trigger a re-election by resigning. There is a well defined succession of power that will be followed.

However, he does offer a variety of potential VPs and is leaving it up to his supporters to tell him which one to choose. So pick your President from that list or suggest a write in.

Re:Lessig is hard to listen to

[quantaman]

The main one is that he's strongly Democrat. For reasons I don't fully understand (electoral college mumble mumble) it seems US candidates cannot ever be independent, they have to pick a side.

It's a common characteristic of first past the post systems, of course it's not inevitable, particularly in the US. I could easily imagine the US supporting a Tea Party based in the deep south and the rest of the country being fought out between moderate Republicans and Democrats at the legislative level.

The only issue is the Presidential elections, the concern isn't vote splitting, either a Republican or Democrat could win, but I suspect both Republicans and Democrats would unify to make sure the Tea Party candidate didn't get in and that might cause the Tea Party to simply fall back into the Republicans.

So that's going to cause issues right there. Reform of Washington should be a bi-partisan issue: I had expected him to run as an independent and then resign and trigger fresh elections once his platform was passed. That way anyone could feel secure voting for him. But I guess that sort of thing isn't possible.

The other is that surely he it takes more than one man to deliver the reforms he wants. Why isn't he creating a political party rather than running for President? This must be the only-two-parties rule again? I heard once that there are more than just Dems and Reps in the US political system but I never hear much about them.

Going as an independent is basically a way of signalling that you're in it as a spoiler (and possibly just for your ego). Running in the Democratic primary signals that he might actually be trying to get the job.

Re:Lessig is hard to listen to

[Dorianny]

The reason why is because it's dead easy to run as one of the major parties and use their ballot line. In some states it is practically too late to try to start a new party or run as an independent; it's an incredibly time-consuming and resource-draining process. If he runs as a Democrat, he's on the ballot in all 50 states and DC. If he runs as an indy, he might be able to reach somewhere in the 30-40 state range.

Unlike the UK (which I'm assuming you're from just because that's the easiest assumption), where a few signatures and a deposit gets you on the ballot, here each state has different rules, and most states unabashedly try to keep independents or minor party candidates off the ballots with unequal laws.

The main political parties in the U.S are heterogeneous and not only loosely bound in ideology but even somewhat accepting of members with contradicting positions. There are Republicans and Democrats which differ with their own party even in defining issues such as abortion, gun-control and fiscal policy. MP voting against their own party is a sure way to a party split in Parliamentary systems, in the United States Congressman and even Senators regularly vote against the parties leadership.

Re:Lessig is hard to listen to

[FlyHelicopters]

I had expected him to run as an independent and then resign and trigger fresh elections once his platform was passed.

That isn't how it works...

If the President resigns, then the Vice President becomes President. We don't have new elections until the 4 years are up, even if 15 people in a row resign. There is a long list of people in line to be President.

Re:Lessig is hard to listen to

[Godwin O'Hitler]

To recap: winner-take-all systems force two-party systems.

And two-party systems perpetuate winner-take-all/first-past-the-post systems.
Commercial barriers to entry can be judicially torn down. Political ones, not so easily.

He chose Democrat because reasons

[Schezar]

The original superpac was strictly non-partisan. However, it turned out that almost zero Republicans wanted anything to do with him, it, or campaign finance reform. So in practice, only Democrats supported the idea. The Republicans MAYDAY reached out to actively oppose campaign finance reform...

There really aren't viable candidates on the national stage outside of our two main parties. The vast majority of other parties are extreme fringe single-issue parties, and most of them are far right-wing or deeply religious. The only two parties that come even close to being worth mentioning are the Green Party and the Libertarian Party. The former can't get nationally elected, and the latter has caucused with the Republicans for over a decade now.

Re:He chose Democrat because reasons

[Anonymous Coward]

> only Democrats supported the idea.

Uhh, the last major reform bill we had was McCain-Feingold, and McCain is a Republican and it had bipartisan support.

Re:He chose Democrat because reasons

[quantaman]

> only Democrats supported the idea.

Uhh, the last major reform bill we had was McCain-Feingold, and McCain is a Republican and it had bipartisan support.

That was also back in 2002. I don't know exactly when it happened but at some point in the ensuing 13 years the mainstream Republican party went off the deep end, bought a backhoe, then kept on digging. It might be possible to build support for campaign reform among Republicans but only if you play the extremist at the same time.

There might be someone who can sell moderate bi-partisan policies to Republicans, but it's not Lessig.

Re:He chose Democrat because reasons

[Shadow99_1]

While I don't give him good odds of getting elected, mostly because people can't seem to do more than vote for the candidates that get the biggest media campaigns, he's the only current candidate I'd even think of voting for. Lessig isn't my perfect candidate, but he is far more like it then any primary party candidate could ever be and still be part of their party. The greens and Libertarians have much the same issues as he does. The last good presidential third party candidates to get any traction have all been business people with the sheer money to rival any campaign the big two could field. Most people just can't be bothered to get a feel for candidates outside tv ads and billboards sadly. They hear talking points, see rallies in the local and national news, and then think 'this guy does things I like' or 'this guy is from the party I like' and vote for them. I'm certain this will continue even though I wish it would change.

Re:He chose Democrat because reasons

[fustakrakich]

There really aren't viable candidates on the national stage outside of our two main parties.

  Reasoning with republican and democrat voters is utterly futile. We have to work on the non-voting block. It is a large enough majority that we can simply ignore the ruling parties and vote in something else. And we can render all campaign money absolutely worthless at the same time. There is no need for this phony baloney "campaign reform" bullshit. It is thinly disguised censorship.

Re:He chose Democrat because reasons

[Dorianny]

The Republicans thought they would have the upper hand in the post Citizens United era. The truth is that among the top 100 individual donors more than half are democrats and for whatever reason Democrats tend to have a higher % of their supporters contribute financially despite them generally earning less then their Republican counterparts . The SuperPACS are generally simply cancelling each other out and have had limited impact outside of primaries. As time and effort spent fundraising is reaching ridiculous levels, support for campaign reform is rising even on the Republican side.

Re:He chose Democrat because reasons

[ScentCone]

The Republicans thought they would have the upper hand in the post Citizens United era.

No, they just thought it would be nice not to have their First Amendment rights infringed, that's all. And plenty of liberal-minded groups agreed with them. You don't give up your freedoms of speech and assembly based on the calendar, nor based on the manner in which you assemble. Large media operations were allowed to pursue candidate and issue advocacy while other groups were set up to become criminals for doing exactly the same thing. A plain and simple violation of the First Amendment, not to mention an obvious example of unequal protection under the law. A group that wanted to make and show a documentary about Hillary Clinton was being prevented from doing so during election season, while the New York Times or MSNBC could run special editions or one-hour specials aimed at her opponents? That sort of capricious BS is what the ruling was about, and well it should have been. McCain-Feingold was unconstitutional on the face of it.

Re:He chose Democrat because reasons

[Dorianny]

No, they just thought it would be nice not to have their First Amendment rights infringed, that's all.

Want to explain to me why Democrats overwhelmingly opposed the ruling why Republicans supported it? Do Democrats not want their first amendment rights or is it much more likely that Republicans thought they stood to gain from the ruling while Democrats thought that they stood to loose.

Re: He chose Democrat because reasons

[jmac_the_man]

The original superpac was strictly non-partisan.

This isn't actually true. The group's rhetoric assumes that businesses (and buisnessmen) shouldn't be able to fund politics because business (and businessmen) are evil, while government (and so called public interest groups) are righteous.

By and large, that is the argument of the American Left, rather than the Right. If your argument assumes that to be true, you shouldn't expect support from the right. Also, he named his group after a socialist holiday... Because it's a leftist group, and he's lying when he claims it isn't.

Re:He chose Democrat because reasons

[PopeRatzo]

Uhh, the last major reform bill we had was McCain-Feingold, and McCain is a Republican and it had bipartisan support.

Isn't it interesting that both McCain and Feingold had their planes shot down. In the case of Feingold, it was fatal.

Re:He chose Democrat because reasons

[ScentCone]

Want to explain to me why Democrats overwhelmingly opposed the ruling why Republicans supported it?

Because the majority of media outlets, which weren't impacted by McCain-Feingold's limitations on pre-election opinion broadcasting, are run by editorial boards and staff that skew left. The Democrats truly enjoyed that un-infringed support. Simple as that.

It's not that Republicans stood to gain by having their constitutional rights re-protected, it's that they stood to RE-gain something that had been taken away from them out of proportion, in political terms.

Re:He chose Democrat because reasons

[ScentCone]

You mean the First Amendment as it was interpreted before Citizens United or the First Amendment as it has been interpreted since Citizens United? Because they're not the same thing.

Prior to the Citizens United case, McCain-Feingold hadn't BEEN interpreted in constitutional terms. Not by the courts. Just because it passed in congress doesn't mean it's constitutional. That's the whole point of bringing such things before the court.

Re: He chose Democrat because reasons

[AmiMoJo]

The only democratic option is to take money out of politics. State funded candidates, no gifts or deals, no industry jobs after leaving office. No supporting TV ads especially.

Will never happen of course.

Re:He chose Democrat because reasons

[AmiMoJo]

When the First Amendment was written the authors clearly didn't predict the rise of broadcasting and mass media. Unfortunately the effectiveness and the high cost of using broadcast media has broken US democracy.

There was a bit of hope with social media for a while, but the spin doctors quickly learned how to manage that too.

Re: He chose Democrat because reasons

[theCoder]

If we had only state funded candidates, what would happen when someone like Donald Trump wanted to run for President? Would we give him tax payer money to spew his misinformed and occasionally hateful opinions? What about someone from the KKK? Would we give that person money? And if not, who decides who is allowed to run and who is not?

Also, keep in mind that keeping money out of politics inherently gives more power to the mainstream media to endorse (or suppress) candidates. They might not do it conciously (by and large the MSM is pretty dumb and easy for some to manipulate), but they are a major factor in what people know about the candidates they are voting for. Any campaign finance reform should take this into account.

Re: He chose Democrat because reasons

[AmiMoJo]

The way state funded candidates and parties work in most democracies is that they have to have a minimal level of success by themselves. When they have established this low level they qualify for state funding. So yeah, people with really horrible things to say are given state money to say it. But it's worth putting up with that to get all the benefits of taking the money out of politics.

Re:He chose Democrat because reasons

[Richard_at_work]

Newspapers were in regular print in the Americas during the 18th century, so the founding fathers would have been well aware of mass media as it had already started.

Re: He chose Democrat because reasons

[jmac_the_man]

Again, you're assuming facts not in evidence. What is the actual problem with money in politics?

The problem is that dirtbags (and there are plenty in both parties) use money to get elected and then make decisions that intrude on your rights too much. But the problem isn't the money, it's the dirtbag.

A strictly limited government wouldn't attract as many dirtbags, simply because there wouldn't be enough opportunites for graft or potential rewards to hand out to cronies. You'll notice Lessig isn't advocating for that.

Re: He chose Democrat because reasons

[jmac_the_man]

So yeah, people with really horrible things to say are given state money to say it.

All non-tyrannical governments protect the right of the people to freely associate, or to freely withhold their association. (The United States recognizes this, which is why "freedom of association" is explicitly enumerated in the First Amendment to the Constitution.)

Taking what you euphemistically call "state money" but which is really a citizen's tax money and handing it out to people that citizen hates flies in the face of freedom of association.

Meanwhile, under the current system, if a citizen supports a candidate, they can, but are not obliged to, cut a check to the candidate directly. This way, nobody has to give money to someone they hate.

Re:He chose Democrat because reasons

[AmiMoJo]

Back then there were many newspapers, and the distribution methods of the day didn't allow them to publish daily news in every state simultaneously. There simply wasn't the concentration of ownership or power that there is now, rather lots of smaller outfits.

Re:He chose Democrat because reasons

[Richard_at_work]

So? Its the same progression mass media has undergone since it was first created - even with radio, TV and Internet, news reporting has increased in speed and acceptable delays have decreased to the point where if you break a news story minutes before another outlet then that is considered a success.

We have gone from daily news bulletins to hourly news bulletins to constant news channels - and now we have the internet where anyone can break some major news with a few lines of text as the event happens...

So all you are seeing is the very same progression that has gone on since the first mass produced news leaflet was distributed in Roman times - and tech has constantly driven the speed of delivery.

Re:He chose Democrat because reasons

[AmiMoJo]

Okay, try to think of it another way. The amount of money needed to get into office has increased dramatically. Even accounting for inflation, it's rocketed. It seems clear to me that the people who wrote the constitution and the First Amendment didn't intend for people to be able to buy power with money. They wanted ordinary people to be in control of the democracy, not a rich elite.

Later on slavery was abolished and women given the vote. Democracy was spread to as many people as possible. I can't imagine they would have wanted the First Amendment to concentrate power in the hands of just those with vast amounts of money to spend on elections. In fact it seems to be designed to do the opposite - to ensure that everyone can participate, no matter how repulsive their arguments are.

Re:He chose Democrat because reasons

[Richard_at_work]

They wanted ordinary people to be in control of the democracy, not a rich elite.

John Rutledge - lawyer, Judge and travelled to England to complete his law studies. Was also a monied land owner who came from "old money".

Edmund Randolph - lawyer and monied land owner in Virginia, inheriting the estate of the Randolph family.

Nathaniel Gorham - merchant and monied land owner in Massachusetts via the $13.9 million Phelps and Gorham Purchase.

Oliver Ellsworth - lawyer and monied land owner, had multiple degrees.

James Wilson - lawyer.

Which of the above, who wrote the Constitution, were "ordinary people"?

Lets not forget that almost all states had a "property ownership requirement" for voting, which cut out a *massive* number of your "ordinary people" from being able to vote in Presidential and Congressional elections.

You have always had to have a significant amount of money to reach the higher echelons of US government, ever since day one.

Re:He chose Democrat because reasons

[ChrisMaple]

Nonvoters: those in prison and those criminals released from prison who haven't had their ability to vote restored. The underage. The mentally defective. The disaffected. And the biggest group, those who don't care. What candidate wouldn't be proud to say "I was elected by people who don't give a damn!"

Re:He chose Democrat because reasons

[ScentCone]

Okay, try to think of it another way. The amount of money needed to get into office has increased dramatically.

Yes, compared to the good old days, it's skyrocketed. Just like the survival rate of mothers giving birth, the standard of living, the population, and everything else. So what? Does the fact that a comprehensive campaign to communicate to hundreds of millions of people can't be free mean that we should infringe on your first amendment rights, and mine? There's a reason the constitution is so crystal clear on the fact that the government may not do that. If you don't like that, propose an amendment in which the government can stop you from expressing your political opinions, and get that amendment ratified. Good luck with that.

Re:He chose Democrat because reasons

[ChrisMaple]

Women had the right to vote in New Jersey in 1776.
The founders did not think democracy was a good thing, properly understanding it to be equivalent to mob rule.
The founders were well aware that some people are better than others, and also that financially healthy people had the time to study history and politics in a serious manner. Madison in particular (too optimistically) supported indirect election to the highest offices, arguing that the good people in middle offices would elect their very best to the highest offices.

The focus of the founders was not "everybody regardless of merit should be a part of our wonderful plan", it was "let's make the most just and solid union we can."

Re:He chose Democrat because reasons

[fustakrakich]

What candidate wouldn't be proud to say "I was elected by people who don't give a damn!"

Like it or not, that is exactly what is in play right now. Over 98% of the people who do vote don't give a damn, and give us a monolithic political party with a 95% reelection rate. There will be no help coming from them. They are lost, catatonic. Bacon is very addictive.

Re: He chose Democrat because reasons

[ChrisMaple]

no industry jobs after leaving office.

So you're saying that if officeholders can't steal enough while in office to live the rest of their lives, they should starve to death.

Re: He chose Democrat because reasons

[ChrisMaple]

Governments have a legal monopoly on force. It isn't a government if it doesn't have some sort of coercive agency. By your silly argument, "socialist" becomes a meaningless word, because all governments have some sort of state funded organization to perform at least some military functions.

As a side note, America has a particular hatred for mercenaries, due to the British use of Hessians in the Revolutionary War.

Re: He chose Democrat because reasons

[dywolf]

and then billionaires that have more speech than anyone else can just spend a billion dollars worth of speech on their nutjob candidate?
fuck off troll.
your kind of idiocy is exactly what the powers that be want: morons protecting the status quo, ie, a rich/powerful man's game.

Re: He chose Democrat because reasons

[dywolf]

Would we give him tax payer money to spew his misinformed and occasionally hateful opinions?

Yes.
Getting money out of politics means getting it ALL out of politics.

No gifts.
No donations.
No big rich groups campaigning on someone else's behalf.
And no rich guys self-financing (to prevent turning it into a rich man only game)

In fact, it's the best way to break the oligarchy's back, returning it to a game anyone can play.

How do you pick?
Easy: open primary.

Everyone who wants to be considered for the General Election runs in a single Primary, regardless of party. Top 2 or 3 go the General.

Re: He chose Democrat because reasons

[dave420]

If America hates mercenaries so much, why does it fund them, train them, and keep on using them? You might also want to look at the heaps of other socialized services and infrastructure projects in the US before getting more confused.

Re:He chose Democrat because reasons

[tehcyder]

Yes, but the point is that things have moved on since the Eighteenth Century. You no longer need to be a wealthy male to vote, so why should you need to be one to get elected?

Re:He chose Democrat because reasons

[tehcyder]

The founders did not think democracy was a good thing, properly understanding it to be equivalent to mob rule.

The founders were well aware that some people are better than others, and also that financially healthy people had the time to study history and politics in a serious manner.

That would be logical as long as you don't try and pretend the US is a shining example of, um, democracy, in which case why bother with all that voting shit?

Re: He chose Democrat because reasons

[tehcyder]

If we had only state funded candidates, what would happen when someone like Donald Trump wanted to run for President? Would we give him tax payer money to spew his misinformed and occasionally hateful opinions? What about someone from the KKK? Would we give that person money? And if not, who decides who is allowed to run and who is not?

You would need to have the equivalent of the deposit/endorsement system for parliamentary candidates in the UK, i.e. you need X number of signatures and pay Y amount to stand. (This isn't a great deal, just enough to stop complete idiots and timewasters).

As long as your views weren't actually illegal, you would be free to say whatever you wanted. So, you could call for an end to immigration, but not for all people with dark skin to be rounded up and tortured to death on live TV (or whatever).

Re: He chose Democrat because reasons

[tehcyder]

Taking what you euphemistically call "state money" but which is really a citizen's tax money and handing it out to people that citizen hates flies in the face of freedom of association.

Well my taxes also pay for rapists and murderers to be kept in prison, and other people's kids to be educated, and strangers to be given medical care and all sorts of other things that I wouldn't necessarily choose to do if I had a choice.

Civilization isn't just a series of computer games.

Re: He chose Democrat because reasons

[tehcyder]

America has a particular hatred for mercenaries

Maybe if they're on American soil. I don't remember you having had any particular problem with Blackwater and the rest in Iraq.

Re:He chose Democrat because reasons

[Richard_at_work]

I thought the point was that "they wanted ordinary people to be in control of the democracy, not a rich elite", which is demonstrably false...

Money has always played a massive part in politics - if you think that should change, then fair enough, but citing history as a supporting prop doesn't work.

Re: He chose Democrat because reasons

[jmac_the_man]

I'm not sure where you want to put the murderers and rapists if not prison, but that's different than paying someone to say stupid and hateful things. Under non-tyrannical governments, you don't have to pay someone to say stupid and hateful things... and you get to pick what's stupid and hateful, and thus, from whom you will withhold those funds.

Re: He chose Democrat because reasons

[jmac_the_man]

We celebrate it in spirit as "Labor Day"

The idea behind May Day is the international solidarity of workers after an event that happened on May 1st. Other than that they were both pushed for by labor unions, the Labor Day celebrated in the United States has nothing to do with it. Which is why it's not in May.

Re: He chose Democrat because reasons

[jmac_the_man]

You're a Sanders supporter, judging by your signature line. Do you think he's being treated fairly by the media?

I don't. Under the ridiculous campaign finance restrictions that Lessig wants, nobody whose ideas deviate from the media's will be able to inform voters about anything at all. (After all, Lessig exempts the media from his plan.) Sanders's supporters deviate to the media's left, while the people I support deviate to their right.

Under Lessig's plan, the media cabal would pick every candidate for every office forever.

Re:He chose Democrat because reasons

[david_thornley]

The law, before the ruling, deprived exactly nobody of free speech.

Re:He chose Democrat because reasons

[ScentCone]

You're (deliberately, of course) confusing who owns things with who does the reporting and who makes editorial decisions. If you're trying to pretend that endless studies demonstrating the overwhelmingly partisan democrat leanings of the people who produce, edit, and deliver the news and entertainment that shapes public opinion, then ... please stop. You're not kidding anybody. But the fact that you tried to slip in irrelevant and deliberately misleading information says you already know all this, and you're just trying to muddy the waters.

Re:He chose Democrat because reasons

[ScentCone]

The law, before the ruling, deprived exactly nobody of free speech.

Other than the people who would be prosecuted under the law for speaking in any manner or during any of the times that the law said would make them criminals. You're either deliberately trolling, or you have no idea what you're talking about, or maybe some of both.

Re:He chose Democrat because reasons

[david_thornley]

It restricted corporations. It did not restrict individuals.

Re:He chose Democrat because reasons

[ScentCone]

It restricted corporations. It did not restrict individuals.

No, it also restricted individuals. You, personally, could not run a candidate or issue advocacy ad on a date too close to the election, for example. But regardless:

Let's say you're a landscaper. You. By yourself. You've incorporated your business for all of usual very good reasons. Now you're an Eeeeevil Corporation, right? Right. Your local town's mayoral race is in play, and one of the candidates says that he thinks all uses of fertilizer should be banned. This would destroy your business. So you want to run a small election-season campaign to inform your customers and other people in town about how that one candidate's position could impact your local business, but also in some cases their own homes. In fact, you find that you and several other landscapers - some individuals, and some LLCs, and some incorporated - realize that they all have a common interest in this case, and form a PAC in order to pool their resources, to make the best use of their limited communications budget on a matter that's very important to them.

Gasp! A association of Eeeeeevil businesses trying to sway an election with their Eeeeeevil corporate money! No big deal, right? It's a bunch of citizens of this country assembled together and looking out for the interests of themselves, the companies they've formed, and their future prospects. Except, McCain-Feingold had things to say about it. In direct conflict with the First Amendment. The First Amendment has NOTHING to say about special conditions under which the government can muzzle political speech (say, when it's a landscaper's business running an issue ad to counter a politician who is demonizing his business). The constitution says, "Congress shall make no law ... abridging the freedom of speech" - it doesn't say, "Except when the people speaking have assembled into a labor union, or a company, or a non-profit group..." Why? Because everyone involved in those incorporated assemblies are people. And they are guaranteed freedom from government interference when they decide to assemble and or speak. Period.

Re: He chose Democrat because reasons

[jwhitener]

The original superpac was strictly non-partisan.

This isn't actually true. The group's rhetoric assumes that businesses (and buisnessmen) shouldn't be able to fund politics because business (and businessmen) are evil, while government (and so called public interest groups) are righteous.

That is a very 'fox media' skewed view of things. We place limits on speech all the time. Some countries recognize that unlimited 'speech' in the form of money, does more harm than good, and restrict that 'speech' in various ways.

There is nothing wrong with that at all. It would likely require an amendment to our constitution.

What is so horrible about a system like this, for instance:
1. Anyone that can gather X signatures is allowed to run for president.
2. All candidates are given equal air time in the form of a series of debates.
3. Each candidate is given X dollars from the government to use how they see fit.
4. Very little if any 'outside' money is allowed. No advertising about issues at all unless it comes from the campaign. No super pacs, etc..
5. Individual people can donate a small amount to a campaign if they want. 50 bucks or so.

That seems like the absolute best way to given 3rd party candidates a shot, while still allowing individuals to 'cast their vote with their wallet' by donating early to a campaign, which would allow more 'speech' in the form of advertising for that campaign.

In my mind, that would absolutely level the playing field. Tea party candidates, green party, socialist, neocons, whatever. Anyone would have a chance if they can get the signatures.

Re: He chose Democrat because reasons

[jmac_the_man]

The group's rhetoric assumes that businesses (and buisnessmen) shouldn't be able to fund politics because business (and businessmen) are evil, while government (and so called public interest groups) are righteous.

That is a very 'fox media' skewed view of things.

Whether you agree with Lessig on campaign finance restrictions being more important than free speech or not, I'm paraphrasing his group's views fairly. If you disagree, give me an alternative interpretation of his views. Don't just say "Fox News" like that means anything.

We place limits on speech all the time. Some countries recognize that unlimited 'speech' in the form of money, does more harm than good, and restrict that 'speech' in various ways...

Here in the United States, we don't place NEARLY as many restrictions on speech as most people assume... or as some would like. Other countries don't have the kind of freedoms we enjoy, and so enact tyrannical restrictions on speech. That doesn't make it a good idea.

Also, governments who enact these restrictions are doing the whole "assume buisnesses are evil and government and so-called public interest groups are righteous" thing. I'm still waiting for the evidence on that part from you, Lessig, or those governments.

It would likely require an amendment to our constitution.

If part of your plan is "Repeal part of the First Amendment," that should be your first hint that it's a bad plan.

What is so horrible about a system like this, for instance: 3. Each candidate is given X dollars from the government to use how they see fit. 4. Very little if any 'outside' money is allowed. No advertising about issues at all unless it comes from the campaign.

The horrible parts of your plan are steps 3 and 4, and step 6, which you didn't mention.

Your Step 3 gives people taxpayer money. People aren't entitled to "government money" (which in reality, BELONGS TO THE TAXPAYERS) so they can espouse crackpot views. If you want to run for President, the only people whose money you are entitled to are the people who you can convince that you and your views are important enough to fund. The government shouldn't be paying anyone to speak.

Step 4 is just plain wrong. The government can't (and shouldn't) be allowed to restrict the amount of speech made by an entity, any more than they could prevent a newspaper from printing two editions a day or say that religious services are restricted to an hour long and start throwing pastors in jail if their sermons are too long.

Step 6, which you don't address, concerns the professional media. Under your plan, due to the advertising restrictions you're placing, most people will learn most of their information from the news media. (This is explicitly part of Lessig's May Day plan.) News media coverage is itself a form of advertising, which is left untouched under your and Lessig's plan. If the media decides that they support candidate A versus candidate B, and they slant the news that way, there will be no one to oppose them because your and Lessig's advertising restrictions are keeping them out of the field. (Part of Lessig's bet is that the media will continue to collaborate to pick candidates that he supports.)

Re: He chose Democrat because reasons

[jmac_the_man]

I think it's safe to say that we all, as citizens, give state money, or what you euphemistically call "a citizen's tax money" to someone we hate. For me, James Inhofe, for you probably someone like Bernie Sanders or Barbara Boxer.

We're not paying Sanders, Boxer, or Inhofe to speak. We're paying them to do a job, which is different. All three are doing the job of United States Senator very well. (That's a low bar to cross.)

Meanwhile, under the current system, if a citizen supports a candidate, they can, but are not obliged to, cut a check to the candidate directly. This way, nobody has to give money to someone they hate.

Right, but not complete. Under the current system not only can a Citizen cut a check to a candidate they support, but a non-citizen legal entity (a SuperPAC) can cut a check to a candidate

Well, since PACs and other groups get their money from citizens cutting checks to them in the first place, it's the same thing.

[Super PACs make contributions] with relaxed rule as to the amount and poor accountability as to influence.

Restrictions on amounts that citizens can contribute (on their own or collectively) are a restriction on free speech anyway. We should be opposed to them.

Re: He chose Democrat because reasons

[jwhitener]

The group's rhetoric assumes that businesses (and buisnessmen) shouldn't be able to fund politics because business (and businessmen) are evil, while government (and so called public interest groups) are righteous.

That is a very 'fox media' skewed view of things.

1. Whether you agree with Lessig on campaign finance restrictions being more important than free speech or not, I'm paraphrasing his group's views fairly. If you disagree, give me an alternative interpretation of his views. Don't just say "Fox News" like that means anything.

We place limits on speech all the time. Some countries recognize that unlimited 'speech' in the form of money, does more harm than good, and restrict that 'speech' in various ways...

2. Here in the United States, we don't place NEARLY as many restrictions on speech as most people assume... or as some would like. Other countries don't have the kind of freedoms we enjoy, and so enact tyrannical restrictions on speech. That doesn't make it a good idea.

Also, governments who enact these restrictions are doing the whole "assume buisnesses are evil and government and so-called public interest groups are righteous" thing. I'm still waiting for the evidence on that part from you, Lessig, or those governments.

It would likely require an amendment to our constitution.

3. If part of your plan is "Repeal part of the First Amendment," that should be your first hint that it's a bad plan.

What is so horrible about a system like this, for instance:
3. Each candidate is given X dollars from the government to use how they see fit.
4. Very little if any 'outside' money is allowed. No advertising about issues at all unless it comes from the campaign.

The horrible parts of your plan are steps 3 and 4, and step 6, which you didn't mention.

Your Step 3 gives people taxpayer money. People aren't entitled to "government money" (which in reality, BELONGS TO THE TAXPAYERS) so they can espouse crackpot views. If you want to run for President, the only people whose money you are entitled to are the people who you can convince that you and your views are important enough to fund. The government shouldn't be paying anyone to speak.

Step 4 is just plain wrong. The government can't (and shouldn't) be allowed to restrict the amount of speech made by an entity, any more than they could prevent a newspaper from printing two editions a day or say that religious services are restricted to an hour long and start throwing pastors in jail if their sermons are too long.

Step 6, which you don't address, concerns the professional media. Under your plan, due to the advertising restrictions you're placing, most people will learn most of their information from the news media. (This is explicitly part of Lessig's May Day plan.) News media coverage is itself a form of advertising, which is left untouched under your and Lessig's plan. If the media decides that they support candidate A versus candidate B, and they slant the news that way, there will be no one to oppose them because your and Lessig's advertising restrictions are keeping them out of the field. (Part of Lessig's bet is that the media will continue to collaborate to pick candidates that he supports.)

1. You used the word 'evil'. I'm fairly certain Lessig doesn't describe businesses/corporations as evil. But he does describe them as non-human, and does not like non-humans having the same power to influence politics that humans do. It really is a "Fox News" (conservative meme in general) to make it seem like liberals/progressives are anti-business. Lessig is not "against business people", which is what your statement felt like when I read it. Sorry if you didn't mean it that way.
2. The point being that we do restrict some kinds of speech. And it isn't wrong to restrict more, if we agree that the benefit to societ

How could it possibly "work" for 300M people?

[trout007]

There is no way you can effectively centrally plan for a country of 300M people. People keep saying we should be more like Europe and I agree. There are very few decisions made by the EU. Most of the decisions are made by the member States. Let's try that. One state could be very capitalistic but with a big welfare state like the Nordic countries. Others could be more socialist like the French. Some can be crazy libertarian gun and gold nuts like the Swiss.

Re:How could it possibly "work" for 300M people?

[Anonymous Coward]

I honestly can't tell if you're being sarcastic or if you're just incredibly stupid.

Re:How could it possibly "work" for 300M people?

[trout007]

Exactly my point. They are in Europe but don't belong to the EU. They have some agrements like free trade and such but maintain their independence.

Re:How could it possibly "work" for 300M people?

[Kohath]

There are 2 basic philosophies at work.

1. "We know The Right Way for everyone to live their lives and make their choices." This philosophy won't agree with you. The Right Way goes for everyone, regardless of how many they are. If they don't agree, they're stupid or whatever, and their objections can be thoughtlessly dismissed.

2. "We'll live our own lives and make our own choices." These people might agree with you, but it's hard for them to rein in government because of all the money and power to be made enforcing The Right Way on people. Also, these people seem to be a small minority. The majority seem to want to spend their neighbors' money and to make their neighbors' choices for them.

Re:How could it possibly "work" for 300M people?

[Lennie]

Can you explain what you mean with: socialist French and welfare state Nordic countries ? Because I would lump them all in the same category, but you clearly have 2 different categories.

I'm from Europe and I would think I know more about European countries than the average US citizen, so maybe it's just a cultural divide why I don't understand what you mean.

Re:How could it possibly "work" for 300M people?

[trout007]

It's an argument for Subsidiarity.

Re:How could it possibly "work" for 300M people?

[trout007]

The Nordic Countries are very Capitalist. There aren't too many state owned companies and the laws allow for a very unregulated, free, dynamic, and productive free market. This is coupled with a large welfare state backed by high taxes. So the state takes that tax money and distributes it out to the citzens in different forms of welfare.

France, Spain, Italy, etc have a more socialist system where the state actually owns and runs companies or regulates them so much they are effectivly state owned.

For example the Nordic countries (and Germany until recently) don't have a minimum wage. This allows the unions and employers and the market to set rates. This leads to very low unemployment. The Southern European countries all have high minum wages which causes high unemployment.

IMHO the Nordic countries have a better system because if you have more people working and producing your country is going to be much wealthier. Even if you have high taxes and redistribution.

Re:How could it possibly "work" for 300M people?

[trout007]

You do realize the Governors have access to nuclear weapons through the Air National Guard?

Also each state has their own land management system for state forests and parks. It would be pretty simple to transfer federal land to the respective states.

Re:How could it possibly "work" for 300M people?

[willworkforbeer]

Dear God, let's hope it's a poor attempt at humor. For my friends living there now, it's a case of comedic "too soon" for joking about the horrors of the past.

Re:How could it possibly "work" for 300M people?

[Kohath]

... all the money and power to be made enforcing The Right Way on people ...

Or adverts that tell everyone that greed and privatization is the answer?

If you think that someone else's so-called "greed" is any of your business, you're saying you know The Right Way for them to make their choices, and that you should have the power to impose your choices on them. (Of course, the power structures you build and sustain always eventually end up being used against you by them. But that's nothing that can't be fixed by centralizing even more power, right?)

Re:How could it possibly "work" for 300M people?

[ScentCone]

So what you're saying is you have no idea what you're talking about.

Re:How could it possibly "work" for 300M people?

[dryeo]

Sounded to me like the AC was saying he doesn't want people to push greed and privation as "The Right Way". Greed is one thing that can impact others negatively including the push for big government. Same with privation as it is way of enclosing the commons and stealing from everyone.

Re:How could it possibly "work" for 300M people?

[Lennie]

Ahh, that is what you mean. Yes, I can see now how you'd call it more capitalistic.

I do think it was a mistake to sell some of those national state owned companies. I hear English rail is kind of a mess. Ironically the well run train companies are usually partly state-owned by foreign European countries. ;-)

Yes, I agree it's a better system in the Nordic countries. They spend a lot of money on education and at least one makes it easy to fire people but also spend a lot of money and effort on getting the unemployed new work while they keep almost all of their previous salary in the mean time. Creating a more flexible workforce at a high cost of the tax payers (which I assume leads to a big positive overall).

Let's say when I think of big state/lots of taxes capitalism isn't my first association.

Re:How could it possibly "work" for 300M people?

[trout007]

The main reason capitalism works the best is because companies are allowed to fail and new ones take their place. You let the market allocate resources to the private companies and individuals that make the best (most profitable) use of it. The Nordic countries let that process work and then just tax it to pay for the welfare state.

The problem with actual socialism (State ownership of the means of production) is that it is extremely wasteful and inefficient. Nobody has to do a better job because they are not in competition with anyone. It's Fed Ex vs the Post Office. If you go to Fed Ex and more than 2 people are in line they open another register. At the post office they go on break.

Re:How could it possibly "work" for 300M people?

[trout007]

Country and State are synonyms.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/...

Re:How could it possibly "work" for 300M people?

[Anonymous Coward]

The majority seem to want to spend their neighbors' money and to make their neighbors' choices for them.

There's a narrative that the US war on Iraq was a banana republic war - that a small number of ultra-rich Americans saw an opportunity to profit by having the USA spend somewhere on the order of a trillion dollars to subjugate Iraq and make it's oil available for exploitation. And, also, certain rich Americans were close friends with the Saudi royal family who didn't like Saddam Hussein. So, the basic narrative is that a small number of ultra-rich Americans were spending everyone else's money on policies that really only benefited the ultra-rich Americans and the Saudi royal family.

At the close of his Gettysburg Address, Abraham Lincoln talked about the USA having been founded to be a government of, by, and for the (ordinary) people - in contrast to Europe which was, at the time the USA was founded, primarily ruled by a small hereditary aristocracy.

Inevitably governments do have to make choices - that is, governments do have to choose a Right Way - even if that Right Way is merely to enforce contracts and provide a small military to be used only for self defense. But the question is whether this Right Way is chosen primarily to benefit a small, mostly hereditary, ruling class or whether this Right Way is chosen to benefit the ordinary people.

Lessig's campaign is about steering US government back to policies that benefit ordinary people.

Re:How could it possibly "work" for 300M people?

[Kohath]

Greed is one thing that can impact others negatively including the push for big government.

"Greed" can't impact others. Greed is an implication and/or a motive. Motives without actions impact self only.

An action may impact others. But an action motivated by greed has the same impact on others as the same action motivated by love or unmotated at all, by accident.

In fact, a greedy tormentor can be bribed or bought, whereas do-gooders who'd cause you the same harm are much more dangerous.

C.S. Lewis said it best:

Of all tyrannies, a tyranny sincerely exercised for the good of its victims may be the most oppressive. It would be better to live under robber barons than under omnipotent moral busybodies. The robber baron's cruelty may sometimes sleep, his cupidity may at some point be satiated; but those who torment us for our own good will torment us without end for they do so with the approval of their own conscience. They may be more likely to go to Heaven yet at the same time likelier to make a Hell of earth. This very kindness stings with intolerable insult. To be "cured" against one's will and cured of states which we may not regard as disease is to be put on a level of those who have not yet reached the age of reason or those who never will; to be classed with infants, imbeciles, and domestic animals

Re:How could it possibly "work" for 300M people?

[Kohath]

Inevitably governments do have to make choices

Government should make very few choices, only when absolutely necessary.

Thomas Paine:

Society in every state is a blessing, but government even in its best state is but a necessary evil; in its worst state an intolerable one; for when we suffer, or are exposed to the same miseries by a government, which we might expect in a country without government, our calamity is heightened by reflecting that we furnish the means by which we suffer.

If government is, at best, a necessary evil, then any government that's unnecessary is simply evil.

Re:How could it possibly "work" for 300M people?

[dryeo]

You're correct that greed is only a motivation, just like do-gooding is a motivation. In both cases the motivation can lead to removing the freedoms of others and it seems that they usually go together so the robber baron teams up with the do-gooder to repress others and increase profits and the do-gooders look to the robber baron to finance their "good works". Between them they can lead to greater repression then either alone, especially in modern society where they capture the government.

Re:How could it possibly "work" for 300M people?

[argStyopa]

Crazy idea...a confederation of states, each nominally sovereign and controlling their own systems within the bounds of a federally agreed set of boundaries, nominally tied by a minimalist federal government that only is responsible for a basic set of functions like defense and printing money and the post office?

In short, You mean, like how the constitution was originally written?

Re:How could it possibly "work" for 300M people?

[FlyHelicopters]

There is no way you can effectively centrally plan for a country of 300M people. People keep saying we should be more like Europe and I agree. There are very few decisions made by the EU. Most of the decisions are made by the member States. Let's try that. One state could be very capitalistic but with a big welfare state like the Nordic countries. Others could be more socialist like the French. Some can be crazy libertarian gun and gold nuts like the Swiss.

This was tried, it led to the Civil War. The south, more than anything else, wanted strong states rights and weak federal government. The north disagreed and it ended up in war.

Slavery and other issues were just the hot button topics that got the average person engaged, that isn't really what it was about.

That is why the US has a strong federal government today, the north won the war, reconstruction happened, and you have what we have today.

What most people don't know is that the US Government that we have in 2015 is not actually the same government we had in 1776. It is close, it follows the same piece of paper, but really it has been changed over the years. This is glossed over in civics class of course.

Re:How could it possibly "work" for 300M people?

[TimSSG]

You do realize the Governors have access to nuclear weapons through the Air National Guard?

Also each state has their own land management system for state forests and parks. It would be pretty simple to transfer federal land to the respective states.

I have never heard of a Air National Guard unit with nukes. Did read a fictional book about an Air Force reserve unit that had nukes.
Please site what Air National Guard unit has nukes?
Tim S.

Re:How could it possibly "work" for 300M people?

[Godwin O'Hitler]

But sovereign country and federal state aren't.

Re:How could it possibly "work" for 300M people?

[AmiMoJo]

Europe has a third way.

3) The government works for the people, and acts in their interests.

When we have regulations that Americans say limit our freedom, we often consider them to be increasing our freedom because we no longer have to be an expert on everything. We can go and buy an appliance and know that it meets minimum quality, safety and efficiency standards, and has been rated by our government for us.

Freedom to enjoy life is very important to Europeans.

Re:How could it possibly "work" for 300M people?

[sociocapitalist]

"For example the Nordic countries (and Germany until recently) don't have a minimum wage. This allows the unions and employers and the market to set rates. This leads to very low unemployment. The Southern European countries all have high minum wages which causes high unemployment."

The difference being that the unions in said Nordic countries (and Germany until recently) are prolific, powerful and actually serve the people that they supposedly represent.

Re:How could it possibly "work" for 300M people?

[forand]

I think the "large welfare state[s]" are providing a minimum income to their citizenry. This has very much the same effect as a minimum wage in countries where the economy can handle either the high taxes or the increased costs of a higher minimum wage. The conclusions you draw from the two systems you are comparing do not follow from their forms of economy so much as their underlying economic base which existed before the socialization (sorry bad term but you get my drift) of Europe. Basically correlation does not equal causation.

Re:How could it possibly "work" for 300M people?

[rmdingler]

Apparently there is one recently certified for the task.

Of course, there are many military installations within individual states that could be co-opted during a secession or breakup of the Union,

just as happened in member States of the former Soviet Union.

Re:How could it possibly "work" for 300M people?

[AthanasiusKircher]

This was tried, it led to the Civil War. The south, more than anything else, wanted strong states rights and weak federal government. The north disagreed and it ended up in war.

This isn't really true. In the antebellum U.S., both the South and the North tended to favor the federal government when it suited their interests and to favor "states' rights" when it suited other aspects of their interests.

For example, the South favored states' rights for Western territories to decide for themselves whether they wanted slavery or not, but they favored the federal government when it came to protecting the rights of slaveholders to take their slaves into free states or when it came to enforcing the Fugitive Slave Acts (which were explicitly authorized by the Constitution).

Meanwhile, the North favored the federal government when it came to enforcing limits on slavery, e.g., in the Missouri Compomise, but it favored states' rights when it came to passing laws and even nullifying acts of Congress that tried to enforce pro-slavery elements (like Fugitive Slave laws) in free states.

Some Southern states actually explicitly mentioned the non-enforcement of Fugitive Slave Acts of Congress in their acts of secession -- essentially, the argument was that the Northern states were failing to adhere to the Constitution and the federal government. Thus, the North had already broken its federal compact with the South, thereby justifying secession. See, for example, the South Carolina Declaration of the Causes for Secession (from the first state to secede):

The same article of the Constitution stipulates also for rendition by the several States of fugitives from justice from the other States.

The General Government, as the common agent, passed laws to carry into effect these stipulations of the States. For many years these laws were executed. But an increasing hostility on the part of the non-slaveholding States to the Institution of Slavery has led to a disregard of their obligations, and the laws of the general government have ceased to effect the objects of the Constitution. The States of Maine, New Hampshire, Vermont, Massachusetts, Connecticut, Rhode Island, New York, Pennsylvania, Illinois, Indiana, Michigan, Wisconsin and Iowa, have enacted laws which either nullify the Acts of Congress or render useless any attempt to execute them. In many of these states the fugitive is discharged from service or labor claimed, and in none of them has the state government complied with the stipulation made in the Constitution. The State of New Jersey, at an early day, passed a law in conformity with her constitutional obligation; but the current of anti-slavery feeling has led her more recently to enact laws which render inoperative the remedies provided by her own law and by the laws of Congress. In the State of New York even the right of transit for a slave has been denied by her tribunals; and the States of Ohio and Iowa have refused to surrender to justice fugitives charged with murder, and with inciting servile insurrection in the State of Virginia. Thus the constitutional compact has been deliberately broken and disregarded by the non-slaveholding States, and the consequence follows that South Carolina is released from her obligation.

There's this Southern myth that the Southern states wanted "states' rights" but the North wanted a "strong federal government." In reality, each side wanted both federal and state powers to enforce their interests. Ultimately, of course, the Civil War came about over the questionable legality of a certain potential "state right," i.e., the right to secede, which the South wanted to assert. But in other cases, the South was happy to use the federal government to further its own ends -- and it did so for decades leading up to the Civil War.

Re:How could it possibly "work" for 300M people?

[Kohath]

We have counterparts to those agencies, but ours are hostile. When we buy appliances, we know we are paying extra and getting something inferior because the government prohibited the sale of the old version that worked better and cost less.

Re:How could it possibly "work" for 300M people?

[AmiMoJo]

Don't believe the hype. I don't know about US dishwashers specifically, but we had a similar panic in the EU when they brought in efficiency regulations for vacuum cleaners. People said they wouldn't clean anything any more. Of course it was rubbish, they were actually much better than the old ones because the EU started testing them and putting the ratings on the box, and because manufacturers could no longer complete on wasting the most energy with the biggest, most inefficient high power motor.

Re:How could it possibly "work" for 300M people?

[Archwyrm]

The way the National Guard works is that the federal government owns the equipment and the state owns the personnel. The federal government (National Guard Bureau) decides (with some state coordination) what capabilities units in the states should have and then loans the required equipment (weapons, vehicles, radios, etc). Then it is the responsibility of the state to ensure personnel are trained to perform their mission for the desired capability and using that equipment. This is primarily accomplished by training alongside active-duty personnel to ensure training parity. It happens frequently that the DoD, in conjunction with the NGB, trains parts of the Reserve Component (which includes the National Guard) to perform missions that they may not be equipped or positioned to perform.

Operating nuclear missiles would be one such example. In my experience other examples would include Reserve and NG Military Police performing law enforcement on military installations, operating the Disciplinary Barracks, conducting CID investigations, and so on. They train with these capabilties in mind but only perform the mission when called upon, sometimes for up to 30 days annually, or for longer periods of time less frequently (i.e.: a "deployment").

Re:How could it possibly "work" for 300M people?

[Kohath]

It's not hype. Dishwashers take 2-3 hours to wash dishes. They used to take half as long and the dishes were just as clean.

Re:How could it possibly "work" for 300M people?

[chiefmojorising]

So... States rights, then?

Re:How could it possibly "work" for 300M people?

[LetterRip]

For example the Nordic countries (and Germany until recently) don't have a minimum wage.

Austria, Denmark, Finland, Iceland, Norway, Sweden have nationwide collective bargaining that sets minimum wage per sector. They simply don't have government set minimum wage.

Netherlands has a minimum wage.

So you were wrong on all accounts - there are minimum wage levels, but they are set by nationwide collective bargaining instead of the state in most of these nations. The negotiated minimum wage is typically around US union wages - way higher (22-24$/hr) than even the 15$ per hour proposed by some US politicians and then health/dental are provided via taxes.

Re:How could it possibly "work" for 300M people?

[LetterRip]

Slavery and other issues were just the hot button topics that got the average person engaged, that isn't really what it was about.

No that is revisionist history. It was purely about slavery. The states rights argument was created after the south lost because it was embarrassing to have fought for slavery.

https://www.washingtonpost.com...

Re:How could it possibly "work" for 300M people?

[Lennie]

The transport of packages isn't a good example of a well working sector. The price delivery people get paid per package has dropped to an unsustainable low.

Not surprising because when you order online delivery most of the time is 'free'. Doesn't matter if you order directly from China or from a company in your own town.

Re:How could it possibly "work" for 300M people?

[ChrisMaple]

Thank you. That's one of the most brilliant things I've ever read.

Re:How could it possibly "work" for 300M people?

[ChrisMaple]

It's hard to say that US agencies don't have teeth, given examples of warrantless arrests, jailings, and seizures; also armed strike teams in the FDA and EPA. Where do you think all those billions of rounds of ammunition went that conservatives were complaining about, roughly 4 years ago?

Re:How could it possibly "work" for 300M people?

[dywolf]

Air guard has some nuke techs, and some units are capable.
But nuke control itself is still strictly under Pentagon, and by extension Presidential, control.

Re:How could it possibly "work" for 300M people?

[dywolf]

The South wanted slavery.
Period.
End of story.

It was so important they wrote it into their fucking secession documents.

Re:How could it possibly "work" for 300M people?

[tehcyder]

Some can be crazy libertarian gun and gold nuts like the Swiss.

I don't think that Switzerland is the gun-lovers nirvana a lot of Americans assume.

Adult males have to keep an official military weapon at home (but aren't permitted to keep military ammunition) so this gives a high headline figure for gun "ownership".

Other firearm and ammunition purchases are quite heavily regulated, at least by US standards.

Re:How could it possibly "work" for 300M people?

[tehcyder]

"Greed" is not some imaginary bogeyman dreamed up by evil socialists.

You can have a more-or-less free market system which still outlaws excessive profit taking, just as you can outlaw cartels or monopolies.

Re:How could it possibly "work" for 300M people?

[tehcyder]

"Greed" can't impact others. Greed is an implication and/or a motive. Motives without actions impact self only.

An action may impact others. But an action motivated by greed has the same impact on others as the same action motivated by love or unmotated at all, by accident.

So in other words you don't believe that there is any such thing as morality or ethics?

Interesting that you quote CS Lewis, I'm not sure he would have agreed with you.

Re:How could it possibly "work" for 300M people?

[tehcyder]

Thank you. That's one of the most brilliant things I've ever read.

You should probably get out more, intellectually.

Re:How could it possibly "work" for 300M people?

[david_thornley]

You do realize that companies like Fed Ex do use the Post Office for some deliveries, don't you? The big inefficiency the USPS has is the requirement to serve everybody.

Re:How could it possibly "work" for 300M people?

[Kohath]

An action may impact others. But an action motivated by greed has the same impact on others as the same action motivated by love or unmotated at all, by accident.

So in other words you don't believe that there is any such thing as morality or ethics?

Do you think it's ethical or good for you to hurt people in the name of love?
Do you think it's evil or unethical to help people if you're doing it out of greed -- entirely for your own gain?
Do you think the people around you should happily agree to subject themselves to whatever you want to do to them because you're morally righteous and ethically pure?

Re:How could it possibly "work" for 300M people?

[jwhitener]

I missed where Lessig was saying anything about a centrally planned system. I was pretty sure he is just trying to get money out of political elections. Where did he make that statement?

The money guy ?

[Kohath]

From what we hear about him, he seems to be a guy who raises money to spend to promote himself and his favorite political causes. And that's about it. Maybe he has ideas, but they're not news. Only the fundraising is news.

Re:The money guy ?

[hparker]

No, that is not about it. Yes, the fundraising is news. So is his idea about running as a single issue, anti-corruption candidate, sworn to resign when the Citizen Equality Act of 2017 has passed. No one has ever run promising to resign when his fundamental cause has been achieved.

Re:The money guy ?

[Kohath]

I googled that, but all I got was promotional pages. Nothing about how they're planning to have people arrested and imprisoned for funding campaign speech. Maybe they're not planning that. It's not clear either way. Arresting and imprisoning people for speech is evil, so I would never support that.

Re:Giving it the old "college try" eh?

[davester666]

I believe he is about 3.5 orders of magnitude of money away from a serious run for President.

Re:Giving it the old "college try" eh?

[ShanghaiBill]

There are a lot of problems with what he is doing. If he runs as an independent, he will siphon votes from the Democrat, and help the Republican win. His only real issue is "campaign finance". To fix that, he would need to either amend the constitution, or replace a few Supreme Court justices. That is not something he can "do quickly and then resign". There is also little evidence that campaign finance is at the root of our problems. Sure, a candidate needs a certain threshold of funding to be competitive, but after that, more money makes little difference. In 2012, nearly everyone the Koch Brothers backed, lost. Money cannot just buy elections. The voters are not that stupid. But don't take my word for it: Go ask President Romney, Governor Whitman or Senator Fiorina.

Problem is the opposite - lack of stalemate

[SuperKendall]

Lessig is exactly wrong.

Stalemate is great, because it keeps the inept groping hand of government from raping all of us, either from the left OR the right.

The problem recently is lack of a stalemate. One party held too much control and was able to progress, and after that period ended the president has decided to keep progressing despite a stalemate via executive orders. The next president, left or right, will decide that is a fine idea and carry on to a much greater extent.

Nope, the problem we have now is not lack of the ability of congress to do anything, but the lurching shambling mass of government has freed itself from the thin tethers we were trying to use as a bridle and is now unstoppable and un-steerable.

I'm in a position where it will not affect me too much personally; I just feel really bad for the younger generation being trodden upon.

Re:Problem is the opposite - lack of stalemate

[ultranova]

Nope, the problem we have now is not lack of the ability of congress to do anything, but the lurching shambling mass of government has freed itself from the thin tethers we were trying to use as a bridle and is now unstoppable and un-steerable.

That's a vivid image you're painting there. And it's also one that ensures only those who are hopelessly corrupt will seek a career in the government, thus becoming a self-fulfilling prophecy. People take their cues on how they should behave from their surrounding culture; if that culture tells them this is how the government behaves, then that's exactly how anyone who makes it there will.

Maybe you should drop this bridle stuff and go back to "of the people, by the people, for the people"? Because, frankly, setting your goal as "paralysis" is pretty unambitious.

Re:Problem is the opposite - lack of stalemate

[SuperKendall]

That's a vivid image you're painting there. And it's also one that ensures only those who are hopelessly corrupt will seek a career in the government,

It's quite odd how you phrase a description of the federal government as-is in the future tense.

Because, frankly, setting your goal as "paralysis" is pretty unambitious.

To the contrary - at this point that is unreachably ambitious, as I've stated. It's not a goal, it's a description of why things worked as long as they did, and why they no longer do.

Re:Problem is the opposite - lack of stalemate

[SuperKendall]

Since you cannot produce numbers that measure what I am talking about, I will assume you are simply insane or desperately trying to spin a message for someone.

Either way, reader: I would be suspicious of someone these days without any kind of history to judge from. Very likely this is a staff member of some political campaign.

Re:Presidential Qualities

[hackwrench]

I don't think he'd be as bad as Nixon:
http://2001-2009.state.gov/r/p...

Re:Giving it the old "college try" eh?

[Anonymous Coward]

There are a lot of problems with what he is doing. If he runs as an independent, he will siphon votes from the Democrat, and help the Republican win.

This is the old "strategic vote" or "vote for the lesser evil" argument.
Not only does this kind of reasoning lead to the two party system but it also leads to a situation where neither of the parties has any reason to cater to anyone but the voter who is just in between them which means that the two parties becomes the same in anything but the name.

There is only one thing you should vote for and that is whoever you feel represents you the best. It might not win you the election in short term, but it adjusts the political landscape towards your view in the long run. The alternative is to vote for someone that doesn't represent you which not only makes things bad for you now but keeps them that way in the future.

Re:Giving it the old "college try" eh?

[ShanghaiBill]

This is the old "strategic vote" or "vote for the lesser evil" argument.

In a two party system, this is a valid argument, whether you like it or not. In 2000, there is no question that Nader threw the election to Bush.

the two parties becomes the same in anything but the name.

Except the two parties are not the same on the only issue that Lessig cares about. ALL of the Democratic candidates (including Hillary) have said they will work to overturn Citizens United, and if elected, they will almost certainly follow through on the only way to change it: appoint more liberals to the Supreme Court.

Lessig adds nothing new. His position is no different than the Democrats, and a vote for him is equivalent to a vote for the Republican. His campaign makes no sense.

Re:How is this

[The Real Dr John]

You left out; some nerds pay attention, and even vote occasionally.

Politicians Please, Not Professors

[mtrachtenberg]

I'm glad Lessig was moved to action by the needless and cruel death of a fine young man. Lessig is right that the wealthy control our politics, and he is right that they are leading us down a path of spectacular self-destruction.

But I don't want a noble Harvard professor -- if there is such a mythical beast -- who promises to resign in favor of his Vice President, so as to avoid soiling his hands once he has saved us all.

Instead, I want a spectacularly good politician, who can rally crowds to bring about the change we all want and need. I'm guessing that such a politician will not be willing to say exactly the same things a noble Harvard professor may be willing to say, primarily because any spectacularly good politician values the idea of getting elected and having power more than s/he values the idea of returning to the ivy covered halls. But I'd still like that spectacularly good politician to be willing to stick his or her neck out for things they believe in, whether it makes them ultra-popular or not. And, if they believe in things like putting citizen's health above the needs of corporate health insurers, or things like educating all of a nation's children to the best of their abilities, regardless of their parent's ability to pay, and in the idea that even a full time burger flipper is entitled to enough money to participate comfortably in our society, regardless of whether that means raising the marginal tax rate on CEOs... I can actually drum up some enthusiasm.

Bernie is looking good.

Re:Politicians Please, Not Professors

[meta-monkey]

I think you meant "President TRUMP is looking good."

Re:Politicians Please, Not Professors

[Kiaser Zohsay]

This started way before Aaron. Back when Lessig was pushing for copyright reform, the thing he ran up against again and again was the disproportionate influence of moneyed corporations. Recent events may have increased is velocity, but he has been headed in this direction for a very long time.

lessig for unpresident

[rewindustry]

this has to work, please.

nothing else ever has.

imagine, solving a problem like america...

that really would be news.

Re:Giving it the old "college try" eh?

[Anonymous Coward]

OK, so clearly at least one of the two major parties works well for you.
Don't pretend that they work for all voters or that it is anything wrong with voting for another alternative or that those who do are to blame when your favorite party doesn't win.

Re:Giving it the old "college try" eh?

[meadow]

The basic reality is that he has no chance in hell of winning, and will only split of votes from Sanders. Regardless, Trump wants to dramatically change tax policy and start taxing the uber-wealthy. He wants to abolish Obamacare not because he doesn't want universal health care - he most certainly does - but because Obamacare was a huge giveaway to the middleman who are exactly the ones Michael Moore documented in the movie SIcko. He also wants to make sure that all companies and businesses in America follow immigration law, and only hire Americans, which I support. Finally, he was very much against the Iraq war and regularly speaks at length about the extent to which it has been a major debacle for the US.

He is the only candidate who can speak in front of cameras and microphones without a teleprompter, speaking honestly and openly. He is also openly taking on the Big Media establishment which is doing everything it can to destroy him.

We need Donald Trump for President!

Article subtitle:

[Dahamma]

"How to spend $1 million dollars and have nothing to show for it"

Re:Giving it the old "college try" eh?

[PopeRatzo]

In a two party system, this is a valid argument, whether you like it or not. In 2000, there is no question that Nader threw the election to Bush.

Yeah, but the Republicans have their own Ralph Nader/Ross Perot in 2016. His name is Donald Trump.

Re:Giving it the old "college try" eh?

[Dutch Gun]

“I think I'm running to get people to acknowledge the elephant in the room,” he told ABC’s George Stephanopoulos.

Was Trump in the room with him? And does he really need more attention than he's getting now?

He'll siphon exactly nothing.

[denzacar]

He'll run out of money long before campaigns really begin.
He'll be invited to exactly 0 debates.
He won't even get a chance to be laughed out of the room.
Rand Paul has better chances than him. WAY better chances.

Rand Paul won his seat in 2010 with 755216 votes.
Lessig reached his "MILLION DOLLARS!!!" with donations from 8328 donors.
So, to reach Rand Paul numbers he would have to have over 90 supporters not willing to donate a dime, for every supporter that DID donate money for his "campaign".
Which would be its own special version of depressing if it were true.
And that's just to reach Rand "Snowballs In Hell" Paul numbers.

What he probably WILL accomplish is to tie the ideas he is trying to push with attributes and phrases such as "fringe", "kook", "silly", "crazy", "nonsensical", "ridiculous", "armchair politician", "ivory tower academic", "incompetent", "egghead", "nutty", "loser" and "please stop helping".

Re:He'll siphon exactly nothing.

[tburkhol]

Rand Paul won his seat in 2010 with 755216 votes.
Lessig reached his "MILLION DOLLARS!!!" with donations from 8328 donors.

Rand Paul raised almost all of his $3.1M from two donors.
Ted Cruz reached his $37M with donations from 3 donors.
What's your point? There's no connection between donors and voters. Only 90,000 voters make sizable ($2600) contributions to any campaign and fewer than 150 are responsible for the majority of 2016 spending so far.

Are you satisfied with a system that allows each of Ted Cruz's donors to have literally 100,000 times as much "speech" as each of Lessig's donors?

Lessig (and Rand Paul) are ignored by the establishment - is that because they have tenfold less money or one fewer major/celebrity donor?

Re:He'll siphon exactly nothing.

[denzacar]

Are you satisfied with a system that allows each of Ted Cruz's donors to have literally 100,000 times as much "speech" as each of Lessig's donors?

I don't really give a fuck as I am not USA-ian.

Also, what the flying fuck does it matter what am * I * satisfied with or not?
Unless at least half of those ~130 million who turn up to vote in USA is interested in that same thing, I might as well start shitting in my other hand - at least it'll be warm and it will feel kinda substantial.

And if those people are (dis)satisfied - they should contact their congress-critters.
Not try to reenact Brewster's Millions.
There's no chance they'll outdo Richard Pryor AND a million dollars was a losers choices even back then.

What's your point? There's no connection between donors and voters. Only 90,000 voters make sizable ($2600) contributions to any campaign

The point is that those numbers you're showing actually make his numbers even worse.

First of all, his donations are pitiful.
Nowhere near "sizable" at an average of $120. In the game of "pay for election" he already lost.
Those Ted Cruz and Rand Paul numbers you mention. He will NEVER get those numbers. NEVER!

Then, there's the fact that since he "announced" his candidacy and got his name out there, number of his donors "skyrocketed" to 8794.
All that publicity boost got 466 people to reach for their wallets, and donate less than the previously established average.
466 out of 130 million. Not out of 90000 cause these donations too were not "sizable".
Taking donations as a measure of faith, his "supporters" show a complete lack of faith in him.

Which is not surprising, cause you don't have to be a genius to realize that his plan is not a paradox - but a delusion.

1 - He wants to fight the influence of big money on elections.
2 - Ergo, he supposedly understands that money wins elections. Or at least it influences elections by a huge enough amount that he wants to run for president (and then resign) in order to stop that.
3 - BUT - in order to achieve that, he plans to go against people who both have the money AND who like the fact that money influences elections.
4 - So, he must understand that he won't get any money, thus he will not win elections. GOTO 1.

Only way that kind of plan can make sense is if the planner is delusional.
He wants to challenge people with guns to a gunfight, where they will use real, loaded, guns and he will use a warm fart.

And BESIDES THAT...
His big plan is to threaten politicians with an excuse to just sit on their asses and do nothing while giving daily interviews about how it is all president's fault?

And that's why we can't have any more of this giving birth to grown college professors thing.
People should be born as babies and they should be allowed to grow up slowly, so they can read books for small children.
Maybe then they'll remember that you can't punish Br'er Rabbit by throwing him in the Briar Patch.

Re:Giving it the old "college try" eh?

[Anonymous Coward]

No he won't. Trump will never go for that because it will impact him. Trump SAYS whatever people want to hear, but then he flip flops. He is really the NWO's Republican of choice to run against the NWO's democrat of choice.

Rand Paul is the only chance we have to preven a World War, and a Civil war here in the U.S.

Re:Giving it the old "college try" eh?

[geekmux]

I believe he is about 3.5 orders of magnitude of money away from a serious run for President.

Serious run, eh?

I don't believe you could get any more obvious that elections are bought with a statement like that, no matter how truthful.

Re:Giving it the old "college try" eh?

[Anonymous Coward]

There is also little evidence that campaign finance is at the root of our problems.

Wow, where to start... over and over I see the US government adopt policies that are beneficial to a small number of ultra-rich and detrimental to everyone else: the Iraq war (beneficial to Cheney's friends at Haliburton and the Saudi royal family - hugely expensive to ordinary Americans and a disaster for ordinary Iraqis), Obamacare laundering everything through the insurance companies and being unable to negotiate drug prices (beneficial to the CEOs of the insurance and pharmaceutical companies - adding layers of unnecessary bureaucracy and cost for everyone else), tax cuts for the rich including massive rollback of the inheritance tax (obviously good for maintaining an ultra-rich dynasty - not so great for everyone else), lack of meaningful regulation of the financial markets leading to the collapse and bailout of the US financial industry (the CEOs all still made their millions - while ordinary people suffered).

In 2012, nearly everyone the Koch Brothers backed, lost. Money cannot just buy elections. The voters are not that stupid. But don't take my word for it: Go ask President Romney,...

And yet we still ended up with a moderate Republican in the Whitehouse. :)

Re:Giving it the old "college try" eh?

[Anonymous Coward]

In other words, eliminate the Free Speech, Freedom of Press, and Peaceful Assembly clauses of the First Amendment. I don't think that's a 'fix' for anything.

Some might say that AC's should be banned, or perhaps even that /. should be eliminated because 'all propaganda channels are bad'. Who gets to decide? Putin, Kim Jong-un, Ali Khamenei, or perhaps whoever is at the head of ISIS currently?

Re:Giving it the old "college try" eh?

[Camel Pilot]

No Trump is not running running as a 3rd party. He already signed the loyalty pledge.

Re:Giving it the old "college try" eh?

[Anonymous Coward]

There is also little evidence that campaign finance is at the root of our problems.

Paul Krugman had an interesting blog post today about how productivity has increased by about 70% in the USA over the last 40 years but median wages have only increased by about 9%. Do consider that to be a problem? And, if so, what do you think is the root of that problem?

It's obvious that most of the increased productivity is going to people at the very top. So, for example, if your answer is "foreign competition" then why are the people at the top not affected? Whatever you propose as the reason for increasing economic inequality in the USA has to somehow explain why people at the top are benefiting while everyone else is being hurt.

Re:Giving it the old "college try" eh?

[jcr]

Trump wants to dramatically change tax policy and start taxing the uber-wealthy.

So, you don't know bullshit when you hear it, do you?

-jcr

Re:Giving it the old "college try" eh?

[jcr]

If you truly believe there are no worthwhile differences in the parties, then I suspect you are not paying attention.

He is, and you're not.

-jcr

Re:Giving it the old "college try" eh?

[PopeRatzo]

No Trump is not running running as a 3rd party. He already signed the loyalty pledge.

Do you have any idea how Donald Trump feels about pledges?

http://www.forbes.com/sites/debtwire/2015/08/18/a-trip-down-donald-trumps-bankruptcy-memory-lane/

You know, like pledges to pay back money he borrowed?

Re:Giving it the old "college try" eh?

[jd2112]

The voters are not that stupid.

Check who is #1 in the polls before you say that.

Re:Giving it the old "college try" eh?

[davester666]

Are you trying to insinuate that, if Trump were elected, he would not try to raise taxes for himself?

blasphemy.

Re:Giving it the old "college try" eh?

[Wayspooled]

I wish we could figure out how to limit the money they can spend or "is spent in their behalf". And I am annoyed as hell with paying for serving officials working on behalf of their own or a member of their party's campaign. It's our money they're being paid with.

Re:Giving it the old "college try" eh?

[jcr]

there is no question that Nader threw the election to Bush.

Bullshit. He would have been president if it weren't for that selfish egotistical prick, Al Gore.

-jcr

Re:Giving it the old "college try" eh?

[BlueStrat]

I wish we could figure out how to limit the money they can spend or "is spent in their behalf". And I am annoyed as hell with paying for serving officials working on behalf of their own or a member of their party's campaign. It's our money they're being paid with.

There's really no good solution here.

The problem is that campaigning is synonymous with marketing plus a healthy dose of propaganda thrown in.

This takes manpower & organization. Leasing and staffing hundreds of offices. Buying TV/radio airtime and media production staff. That all costs money. A national/worldwide campaign for president of the US, astronomically so.

Handing each qualified candidate (and who determines who is "qualified" and who decides what the hurdles are and if they've been met?) a set amount to spend totally disadvantages challengers vs incumbents and/or already publicly well-known candidates. Plus, different candidates with different campaign issues, styles, and demographic footprint require differing strategies and different spending levels. There's no way to account for all the factors involved for a meaningful comparison. It would effectively eliminate any remaining and already-marginal chances of any 3rd-party/independent candidate or anyone else not approved by major-Party 'establishment'.

The authors of the US Constitution warned again and again against large political parties and the threats they pose. Combined with a large government that means the apparatchiks have plenty of government to sell large donors.

One thing that absolutely has to be stopped is the foreign money coming into US political campaigns & political organizations, along with "bundling" and other methods used to avoid leaving trails back to the sources to obstruct any future detection and/or investigation as well as skirt legal limits on contributions.

Strat

Re:Giving it the old "college try" eh?

[ThatsMyNick]

There are a lot of problems with what he is doing. If he runs as an independent, he will siphon votes from the Democrat, and help the Republican win.

He knows that, and he has already promised that he will not run as an independent.

There is also little evidence that campaign finance is at the root of our problems. Sure, a candidate needs a certain threshold of funding to be competitive, but after that, more money makes little difference. In 2012, nearly everyone the Koch Brothers backed, lost. Money cannot just buy elections.

The problem with campaign finance is not that money wins the election. It is that you become beholden to your contributors, if you want to continue being a politician. In many countries this is considered as corruption.

I am no fan of Lessig, but I know his policies atleast. If it makes no sense to you, may be you should do some research.

Re:Giving it the old "college try" eh?

[davester666]

1 = 10 m
2 = 100 m
3 = 1b
3.5 = 5 b

I was actually going for 1/2 billion, so 2.5...

Re:Giving it the old "college try" eh?

[Pikoro]

In Japan, people running for office aren't allowed to use radio or tv to campaign. They are essentially limited to posters and driving around and actually meeting the voters. Granted, trucks driving around in the morning and evening during election times with loudspeakers blaring is fairly annoying for a few days, but you don't get this kind of spending that they have in the USA. It seems like the news reports it as a race to see who can raise the most funds. "So and so has raised 2 billion dollars whereas so and so #2 has only raised 500 million. Looks like candidate #1 is going to win". It's sickening.

Re:Giving it the old "college try" eh?

[GNious]

This takes manpower & organization. Leasing and staffing hundreds of offices. Buying TV/radio airtime and media production staff. That all costs money. A national/worldwide campaign for president of the US, astronomically so.

Why'd you make a worldwide campaign? I was under the impression that 'muricans don't care much about how the other 94.5% of the world look at them.

Re:Giving it the old "college try" eh?

[trenien]

Curious.

As I recall, Bush won the election after a massive amount of fraud gave him Florida and the Supreme Court decided they liked it that way.

And, of course, let's not talk about the 2004 elections...

Re:Giving it the old "college try" eh?

[geekmux]

There's really no good solution here.

The problem is that campaigning is synonymous with marketing plus a healthy dose of propaganda thrown in.

This takes manpower & organization. Leasing and staffing hundreds of offices. Buying TV/radio airtime and media production staff. That all costs money. A national/worldwide campaign for president of the US, astronomically so...

Uh, other than the weak excuse of "creating jobs" every four years, why do we do all this again? Perhaps it's been too long since we've asked that question, as we sit here communicating across a global HD multimedia platform that didn't exist 25 years ago.

Times have changed. Voters now live in the online world. I'd like to see Congress force the entire damn campaign online for every candidate, in order to make a green statement and mean it by applying it to the elite.

Hey Presidential candidates, you want to add any planet-saving initiatives to your political message? How about you prove it by agreeing to run the election over YouTube instead of wasting hundreds of millions that could be donated to the needs of our country instead.

To all the naysayers...

[wjcofkc]

Who say that Lessig's campaign will only open the White House to a republican president. You are probably right.

All the same, here is to hoping that those posts equate to Roblimo's post about the first iPod and what actually followed. Well, so to speak.

Re:Giving it the old "college try" eh?

[tburkhol]

The problem is that campaigning is synonymous with marketing plus a healthy dose of propaganda thrown in.

To sell a candidate as though he's a box of soap is a relatively new strategy. The campaigns between Nixon-McGovern and Bush-Gore all cost about the same. The Bush-Kerry race (now with "527" groups) doubled that. Obama-McCain nearly doubled Bush-Kerry, and Obama-Romney (post Citizens United) doubled that.

Nor is this money being spent to develop or inform voters of policy. It's at best 10 second sound bites, and usually just emotional manipulation, cynically calculated to move voters, with the majority of money coming from a handful of super-rich and corporations. While it is certainly true that a group of people should be allowed to pool their resources to support a candidate, PACs that get most of their funding from a single individual (eg David Koch or George Soros) distort the spirit of community action. Ted Cruz's campaign is being paid for by three donors.

TL;DR: campaign spending has exploded as it became possible for people to escape individual spending limits by laundering their money through "advocacy groups" and SuperPACs.

Re:Giving it the old "college try" eh?

[tburkhol]

Times have changed. Voters now live in the online world. I'd like to see Congress force the entire damn campaign online for every candidate, in order to make a green statement and mean it by applying it to the elite.

The younger, online crowd vote in smaller proportion than the older, traditional media crowd: remember that a quarter of congress doesn't read their own email. Also, I really do not want to find out how much spam a billion dollars of SuperPAC money will buy.

Re:How is this

[PopeRatzo]

Lol.. tears of joy that carson won y such a large margin.

Yes, but the way we stop GOP voters from voting for Ben Carson is just before the election we tell the GOP base that he's, you know, b-l-a-c-k.

Meh

[TheCarp]

I like him, of anyone I could want for president, he would probably be at the top of the list.

Thing is, I am just done with this broken system. I don't even want another President at all, I want to see the entire federal level eliminated and maybe re-created from scrtach....maybe just left dead.

Lessig is an Educated Fool

[BECoole]

n/t

Re:Giving it the old "college try" eh?

[CaptainDork]

What we need are voters who don't live in fucking Lala land.

Re:Giving it the old "college try" eh?

[CaptainDork]

This.

Candidates need money to fly/bus to different locations and hold/attend rallies and stuff.

Where the Koch brothers fucked up was investing in those goddam useless commercials on radio and TV.

What's the first thing we all do when a commercial comes on?

We take a pee break or change the channel.

Especially annoying were the negative campaign ads. Those have proven, time and again, to be a turnoff. Political ads seldom extol virtues and more often attack other candidates.

Money doesn't work unless you spend it wisely by getting people to go door-to-door, hold town meetings, providing voter registration assistance, and providing transportation to the polls.

Spamming voters is just as effective in the political arena as it is in the sphere of emails.

Re:Giving it the old "college try" eh?

[pspahn]

You imply that people who vote for Trump are stupid.

Maybe people are just sadistic (like myself) and want to see Trump win simply for the fact that if he does, it will become a watershed moment in American politics. An awakening, rebirth, whatever you want to call it. If Trump wins, we lose four years so that we can improve society in perpetuity. It's a small sacrifice.

Re:Giving it the old "college try" eh?

[GrandCow]

It's a lot easier to get voters in fucking Lala land emotionally invested in issues that don't involve them (gay rights, female body, etc.) and cause them to go vote for a particular party than getting more critical thinkers on your side en masse.

Re:Giving it the old "college try" eh?

[herbierobinson]

To fix that, he would need to either amend the constitution, or replace a few Supreme Court justices. That is not something he can "do quickly and then resign".

Actually, there is something that can be done quickly. It doesn't even take an Act of Congress: Re-instate a variant the Fairness Doctrine. The variant would apply to all political advertising that wasn't authorized and paid for by an FEC candidate committee (or state equivalent). To summarize, The new rule would require the purchaser of advertising to pay for both their own add and a rebuttal add. It might also be nice to require the media displaying the adds to fact check both the original add and the response (and be able to bill the purchaser something for doing that, too).

The Fairness Doctrine has already passed Supreme Court review. It's also likely to continue to pass Supreme Court review, because it creates more free speech as well as increasing the quality of the speech (by providing fact checking).

So, why haven't we already done that? I have submitted the idea through channels and nothing has happened. Sorry for being cynical here, but could it be because the politicians who claim to want to fix Citizen's United have found it to be a fund-raising cash cow and don't really want to fix it?

Re:Giving it the old "college try" eh?

[CaptainDork]

Actually, people don't vote on the "social" issues except during the Republican primary. That's why we get wingnuts like Sarah Palin and Paul Ryan.

Re: Giving it the old "college try" eh?

[kenh]

In a debate, Bernie Sanders, Hillary Clinton or Joe Biden would eat Donald Trump's lunch.

I think you overestimate the rhetorical abilities of Joe Biden (a twice-failed Democrat candidate for President) and Hillary Clinton (who has only lost one campaign for President so far)... I'm happy to extend Bernie Sanders the benefit of the doubt as I've not seen him debate yet.

Joe Biden is often referred to as 'the human gaffe machine', and Hillary has a mountain of distractions that would keep her from being able to advance her ideas, if in fact she has any.

Like him or hate him, Trump has shifted the national debate on several issues in his brief involvement in the campaign, Biden hasn't decided to enter the race, and Hillary can't seem to resonate with a majority of voters within her own party.

Re: Giving it the old "college try" eh?

[PopeRatzo]

Like him or hate him, Trump has shifted the national debate on several issues in his brief involvement in the campaign,

http://www.rollingstone.com/po...

Re:Giving it the old "college try" eh?

[jd2112]

Most of the Trump supporters I've met actually buy into his crap.

Re:Giving it the old "college try" eh?

[ChrisMaple]

Did you even watch the last vice-presidential debate? When Ryan was speaking, Biden was babbling, laughing, and almost drooling. He hasn't gotten any less senile in the intervening years.

Trump knows how to deal with children, and Biden's not much different from a child.

Re:Giving it the old "college try" eh?

[ChrisMaple]

Trump wants to increase the tax rate on a very specific group of financiers who are abusing a loophole in or misinterpretation of the tax code, to bring their taxes up to the rate that others of similar incomes pay. The headline on Trump's tax policy is deliberately misleading.

Re:Giving it the old "college try" eh?

[PopeRatzo]

Did you even watch the last vice-presidential debate? When Ryan was speaking, Biden was babbling, laughing, and almost drooling.

I think you may be misremembering.

http://www.cbsnews.com/news/po...

http://www.theguardian.com/wor...

http://www.businessinsider.com...

But people can watch for themselves. That's the beauty of the Internet:

https://www.youtube.com/watch?...

Re:Giving it the old "college try" eh?

[ChrisMaple]

1) Oh, ye of little understanding.
2) Yes indeed, although there are going to be many people who can't handle the idea. Better ideas stand a better chance of winning with a runoff mechanism
3) Most places, anyone with enough signatures can get on the ballot. Primaries serve a good purpose and polarization has its values. Primaries should be run by and paid for by either the parties or the candidates involved.
4) Randomly selected representatives? Like jury duty? Test it someplace already FUBAR, like California, before subjecting the whole country to chaos.
5) Campaign duration limits violate freedom of speech.
6) Computerized district drawing makes perfect sense.
7) Controlling ownership of news channels is an open invitation to tyranny.
8) Your political bias is obvious if you think Fox is the worst example. You don't deserve to be taken seriously.
9) Who teaches the teachers? Who guarantees that the teachers aren't propagandists?
10) "The people must demand nuance." Oh golly, this is so funny. I can just see protesters holding signs and chanting "We demand nuance!" ... Nuance is a way to hide fundamental beliefs, and those fundamentals are far more important than the details.

Re:Giving it the old "college try" eh?

[ChrisMaple]

To understand what's happening, you need to look at more numbers than the biased and dishonest Krugman will ever provide. The number of people receiving government money without working has exploded over the last 40 years, negating the benefit of the increased productivity of those who work.

Re:Giving it the old "college try" eh?

[ChrisMaple]

It could be because a person who thinks "add" is an abbreviation for "advertisement", doesn't understand how foul it is to force someone promoting good to spend an equal effort promoting evil.

Re:How is this

[ChrisMaple]

The joke's on you. Racism is almost entirely owned by the Democrats, the party of slavery for 187 years.

Re:How is this

[PopeRatzo]

The joke's on you. Racism is almost entirely owned by the Democrats

I guess that explains why the head of the party is a black man.

Re:Giving it the old "college try" eh?

[herbierobinson]

I see your point (didn't for a second -- the humor would have been clearer if you quoted "good" and "evil").

But a lone ranger type who is promoting "good" won't worry about "evil" getting equal time, because "good always triumphs over evil in a fair fight", right kemo sabe?

Re:Money wins

[ChrisMaple]

That Hillary still seems to be #1 is a horrid reflection of those who support her, and the primary indication of how badly the minds of Americans are screwed.

By comparison, every one of the 17 or so Republican candidates is better than Clinton, di Blasio, Sanders, Biden, Warren, or whoever else is being seriously considered for the Democrat nomination. Part of the Republican dithering is caused by Republican power brokers favoring Rino lackeys like Bush, while the party base favors people with substance and/or style. Bush's deep pockets aren't helping him enough; people with depth or flair will eventually get the attention that pulls in the necessary money. In any case, it's too early to be seriously complaining about indecision; it's 3 or 4 months until the field has to be considered the realm of no more than 4 people.

Re:What is required...

[ChrisMaple]

Nice random number generator you have there. Please stop using LSD.

Incidentally, interracial marriage is already legal throughout the US.

Re:Giving it the old "college try" eh?

[dywolf]

There's really no good solution here.

Yea there is.

Publicly financed campaigns.
No private monies.
That means no donations AND no self-funding.

And dude. Foreign monies are what you worry most about? thats molehill stuff when a single donor is preparing to plot down a billion on their preferred candidate.

Re:Giving it the old "college try" eh?

[dywolf]

the two party 'system' comes from the First Past the Post election system we use, not the idea of voting for the lesser of two evils.

Re:How is this

[dave420]

You realise you just look silly when making such statements, right? Probably not, come to think of it...

Re:Giving it the old "college try" eh?

[drsmithy]

The number of people receiving government money without working has exploded over the last 40 years, negating the benefit of the increased productivity of those who work.

That might make the slightest bit of sense if the benefits of all that productivity increase were going to those people who haven't been able to find work since western Governments abandoned full-employment policies.

But it's actually going to the top percent or so, who have all seen incomes and wealth skyrocket over the same timespan.

Re:Giving it the old "college try" eh?

[tehcyder]

Finally, he was very much against the Iraq war and regularly speaks at length about the extent to which it has been a major debacle for the US.

I think by this stage even George W Bush claims he was against the Iraq war.

Re: Giving it the old "college try" eh?

[tehcyder]

Like him or hate him, Trump has shifted the national debate on several issues in his brief involvement in the campaign

Mexicans and toupes.

Re:Giving it the old "college try" eh?

[tehcyder]

OK, so clearly at least one of the two major parties works well for you. Don't pretend that they work for all voters or that it is anything wrong with voting for another alternative or that those who do are to blame when your favorite party doesn't win.

Democracies work by a sufficient majority being persuaded to vote for someone, not on all voters agreeing. There is nothing wrong with voting for what you believe in, but in reality if more than two thirds of the people vote for one or other of two parties, no one else is going to win on a first past the post system.

The obvious answer is not to have a first past the post system, it is something which currently disfigures UK politics, for instance.

Re:Giving it the old "college try" eh?

[tehcyder]

You imply that people who vote for Trump are stupid.

Maybe people are just sadistic (like myself) and want to see Trump win simply for the fact that if he does, it will become a watershed moment in American politics. An awakening, rebirth, whatever you want to call it. If Trump wins, we lose four years so that we can improve society in perpetuity. It's a small sacrifice.

You sound like a German voting in 1933.

Re:How is this

[tehcyder]

If it is not for nerds, then who is it for? Certainly nerds are the only people that will potentially vote for Lessig?

It's only nerds who will even have heard of Lessig.

The problem, as I see it, is the jobs

[PPalmgren]

I think politicians are afraid to touch campaign finance reform because they see it as an 'industry' in a world where industries are quickly vanishing or employing less people. The sheer volume of people employed by campaigns, news agencies covering these campaigns, and ad dollars made by news agencies during these campaigns is staggering.

Not that they aren't touching it because its their gravy train, but I think the jobs factor is a big one. I imagine major leaders of this country have nightmares every night wondering how in the actual fuck to choose policies that keep people employed in this country, a country that ties success and well being entirely to employment. I also think this is a big reason for the Military Industrial Complex, and some of the frivolous wars we fight, as well.

Re:Giving it the old "college try" eh?

[Kiaser Zohsay]

2) Some kind of well studied instant run off voting system.

I am a fan of instant runoff voting, but it will never fly in the US for one simple reason. Only the first round of counting can happen while the polls are still open. You have to wait until all votes are in before you can make the first elimination, and start the second round of counting. In a country spread across six time zones, that puts you into the second or third day before you have a result. A system like that will not be able to deliver the Instant Gratification that Americans demand.

Re:How is this

[Kiaser Zohsay]

Nah, he could have pulled that off any time he wanted. Dude has an honorary doctorate from the University of Amsterdam after all. He's been around.

Re:How is this

[Kiaser Zohsay]

"Occasionally" might be a strong word.

Re:Giving it the old "college try" eh?

[imidan]

I see your point (didn't for a second -- the humor would have been clearer if you quoted "good" and "evil").

What is it about the GPP that makes you think it's a joke?

Do you think that an ultra-conservative who wants to run an anti-abortion ad would think it humorous that they were also required to advocate for the side that they consider to be, quite literally, evil?

Re:Giving it the old "college try" eh?

[herbierobinson]

I don't think this is a joke at all. You were the one trotting out the good and evil cartoon lines and making it into a joke.

I think that re-instating the Fairness Doctrine would take away the unfair advantage money brings to the table. Or to put it another way, a debate isn't fair when one person is talking through a 10KW sound system and the other person has nothing.

Frankly, I want that ultra-conservative (or ultra-liberal) to not spend money on an ad. I want them to demonstrate support for their cause by showing how many people actually agree with them.