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

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

[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

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

[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.

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

[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

[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

[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

[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.

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?

[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?

[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?

[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?

[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?

[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?

[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: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: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.

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: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?

[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?

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]

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?

[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?

[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?

[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?

[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?

[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: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.

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

[CaptainDork]

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

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.