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.

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

[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?

[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: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.

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?

[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?

[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?

[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: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.