Larry Lessig Dumps His Promise To Resign The Presidency In An Attempt To Get People To Take His Campaign Seriously
from the well,-it's-something dept
We've written a few times about Larry Lessig's somewhat wacky campaign for President, which was premised on the idea that it was a "referendum" campaign, where his entire focus would be to push Congress into putting in place serious campaign finance reform and then resigning from the Presidency. As we noted, the whole thing was a bit of a gimmick. And apparently that gimmick hasn't been working too well. Earlier this month, Lessig noted that he was being shut out from the Democratic debates, despite being a Democrat running for President and polling roughly on par with a few of the other nobodies in the campaign. The problem is that the Democratic National Committee apparently chose to ignore the campaign and because it refused to officially "welcome" him to the campaign, pollsters aren't including him and thus he didn't have enough polling data to be invited to the debate.Here’s how you make the debates: After one declares, a candidate is formally welcomed into the race by the Democratic National Committee. Polling firms, taking a cue from the DNC, include that candidate on their questionnaires. Candidates that poll at 1 percent nationally in at least three separate polls earn an invitation. Simple enough.Late last week, some were a bit surprised when Lessig suddenly started posting a whole bunch of things about his platform that went way, way beyond campaign finance reform. You could read his take on innovation policy, national security, equality, health care reform, criminal justice reform, education, immigration reform, government surveillance, the environment, the internet, tax reform, "the war on drugs" and the economy. As someone who claimed he was focused on just campaign finance reform and would then resign... it certainly seemed odd.
That’s how the process typically works for other candidacies — but not for mine. The DNC still has not formally welcomed me into the race — despite my raising money at a faster pace than more than half the pack, and being in the race nearly a full month. Polls, in turn, have taken the hint, only including me sporadically on questionnaires: of the last 10 major polls, only three mentioned my candidacy. One poll recently put me at 1 percent (for comparison, candidates O’Malley, Webb and Chafee, who will each get a podium at the debates, are all currently polling at 0.7 percent or less, according to Real Clear Politcs). Were I actually included on every poll, I would easily make the debates.
But, late on Friday (not exactly the best time to announce anything but bad news...) Lessig announced that he's dropping the promise to resign, because while it may have gotten some attention as an initial gimmick, it was also dragging him down (including potentially keeping him out of the debates).
If the Democrats won’t take seriously a candidate with a viable, credible, and professionally managed campaign just because it includes a promise to step aside once the work is done, then fine. You win. I drop that promise.In the announcement, Lessig claims that the Democratic National Committee was using the promised resignation as a reason not to "welcome" him to the campaign. He also notes that basically everyone hated the idea:
I am running for president. I am running with the purpose of restoring this democracy. I will make that objective primary. I will do everything possible to make it happen first, by working with Congress to pass fundamental reform first.
After we pass that reform, I will remain as president to make sure the reforms stick. I will work with Congress to assure they are implemented. I will defend them against legislative or legal attack.
In a 1,008-person survey about the idea of a referendum presidency, Drew Westen, perhaps the Democrats’ most influential messaging guru, tested both the idea of a campaign focused on fixing our democracy first, and the idea of a president resigning once that work was done.I still think the campaign feels a bit gimmicky, but the direct gimmick of the resignation is now gone. Honestly, Lessig's chances remain slim to none, but at the very least I'd love to see him included in the debates, as he'd be a lot more interesting than most of the other candidates. I just wish they'd let him do one of his fancy slide shows.
The resignation idea was a total bust. No one liked it. At all.
But the idea of an outsider making fundamental reform the central issue of the campaign blew the race apart.
Thank you for reading this Techdirt post. With so many things competing for everyone’s attention these days, we really appreciate you giving us your time. We work hard every day to put quality content out there for our community.
Techdirt is one of the few remaining truly independent media outlets. We do not have a giant corporation behind us, and we rely heavily on our community to support us, in an age when advertisers are increasingly uninterested in sponsoring small, independent sites — especially a site like ours that is unwilling to pull punches in its reporting and analysis.
While other websites have resorted to paywalls, registration requirements, and increasingly annoying/intrusive advertising, we have always kept Techdirt open and available to anyone. But in order to continue doing so, we need your support. We offer a variety of ways for our readers to support us, from direct donations to special subscriptions and cool merchandise — and every little bit helps. Thank you.
–The Techdirt Team
Filed Under: campaign finance, larry lessig, presidential campaign, referendum campaign
Reader Comments
Subscribe: RSS
View by: Time | Thread
How petty.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
"There's no chance he could get elected and he knows it. What he wants to do is keep the issues of campaign finance reform and his other ideas visible. If enough people are talking about it and threatening to vote for Lessig, maybe the first tier candidates will pay attention and do something about it."
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re:
That's basically what they've done since I can remember.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re:
Well, sometimes it's not about winning. Sometimes it's worht it to simply raise awareness. Bring up topics to a wider audience as foundation for future campaigns.
Sometimes it's worth the time - especially in close races where the margin of winning is very small - to gain just enough voter support that a specific demand can be made of one of the primary parties in exchange for an endorsement. If you can get one of the primary parties to change their mind on an important topic in exchange for 1% more votes, that's a huge win.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re:
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re:
That's a low, low bar...
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Bernie or Hillary's VP maybe?
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re:
While being prepared and willing to order in the drones, and increase police powers makes for a world leader?
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re:
In what was basically a completely friendly environment he was eviscerated as to his 'plan'. He said he was a single issue candidate, to which Lawrence got him to change to at least a dual issue, of both finance AND gerrymandering. Certainly not bad things, but when you come in as a 'single issue' candidate it's best not to start creeping within 2 minutes of questioning.
All that aside, his point that the other Dems' proposals are basically just fantasy until you fix the two issues he's pushing is still entirely correct.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re:
I like Larry, but he doesn't seem to do well in interviews. I also fear that he takes criticism very, very personally at times and it causes him to change strategies frequently. I'm probably guilty of the same thing as well, so I understand it, but I'm not running for President. :)
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re:
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: I rather like the idea of President Masnick
But, then, I'd rather have a random person picked out of the phone book than the average candidate that's running.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re:
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re:
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re:
Not really. I think pretty much anyone who's been paying attention, and hasn't fallen for the 'My tribe vs Your tribe' con knows full well that both parties are filled to the brim with slime and corruption. The only real difference is what particular 'flavor' the corruption takes.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Money Doesn't Always Win
Number one is gerrymandering. The number of uncontested congressional seats is nauseating. There is no need for contests, or the money to run them, where districts have been designed for guaranteed victory by one party or the other. This far outpaces the influence money has in federal elections.
High profile spending does not always deliver results. The billionaire republican spending in 2008 and 2012 could not keep Obama from the White House. Further, for every Koch or Adelson, there's a Soros or Pritzker to balance the equation. These wealthy individuals clearly have out-sized influence that needs to be curbed, but they can't guarantee an outcome.
Most complaints about campaign money center around the national elections. However, state and local elections often carry greater impact (see gerrymandering above). These elections are numerous and small, often decided by a few thousand voters, and can be more difficult to systematically influence with a horde of cash.
I'm happy to see Professor Lessig continue to highlight the excess in campaign spending, but I don't see reform as a panacea or even the biggest problem in the political arena.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Money Doesn't Always Win
But I disagree re Citizens United. I support free speech. More speech is always better.
As you point out yourself, Sheldon Adelson and Mitt Romney, despite their billions, were unable to make the sale to the American public.
The problem is not "too much speech" or "too much money buying ads". Speech and ads can only make a case to the voters - but it can't make people accept the argument.
The problem is rigging the results of the election.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Money Doesn't Always Win
That is not the problem, except for the supporter of the other gang. The real problem is the type of person who seeks political office, as the majority who do so are in it for the power rather than to represent the people.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Money Doesn't Always Win
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Money Doesn't Always Win
To repeat something I've said many times before, as long as politicians are granted the power to pick winners and losers, rig markets, change the way people live their private lives, etc., etc., then the most power-hungry will continue to be the ones attracted to political office.
The US Constitution, and especially the Bill of Rights, had the right idea, but didn't go far enough. There must be very firm limits on what politicians are allowed to do.
They must not be allowed to violate the rights of citizens, no matter how large a vote majority they have.
The origin of the problem is that politicians have too much power, too much discretion.
We need limits on what can be done by government by use of force.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: Money Doesn't Always Win
I don't know that writing it differently would have helped when courts are helping the other two branches of government (particularly the executive) violate it the way it's written now.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: Money Doesn't Always Win
You're right, this is a market issue and in this case the market is sewn up. It needs to be freed up.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Money Doesn't Always Win
I don't think "too much speech" is a problem.
The solution is MORE speech, not less.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Money Doesn't Always Win
I don't think "too much speech" is a problem.
The correct response is to respond to speech you don't like.
If you believe the voters are paying attention and thinking, it's the arguments and their credibility that count, not their volume or frequency.
And if you don't think the voters are paying attention and thinking, then why do you support democracy?
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Money Doesn't Always Win
* I am assuming that the sort of things you can do with a lot of money - buy TV ads, etc. - have at least some effect on getting the message across
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Money Doesn't Always Win
But at some point everyone has heard your message. At that point running *more* ads doesn't buy you anything (but annoyance).
If plutocrats were buying so many ads that they were bidding up the price of ads, making it *harder* for others to buy ads, then I think you'd have an argument.
But I don't see that happening in reality. There aren't enough political ads in total to affect the price of ads in general (most ads are for cars, soap, phones, etc.).
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Money Doesn't Always Win
Agree, but I'd have said: for every Soros or Pritzker, there's a Koch or Adelson to balance the equation.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Money Doesn't Always Win
There are contests all right, but they're within the party. This pulls representatives to the extremes. For example, a conservative Republican from a safe Republican district has no concern about getting beaten by a Democrat, but he may very well fear a primary challenge from someone even more conservative. So he moves his positions further to the right to head off such an attack. Just one of several problems with our districting.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Money Doesn't Always Win
Nothing is expected to solve all problems, but this seems to tackle some of your gripes with just addressing campaign finance reform.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re:
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Shocker - NOT!
A presidential campaign is pretty much a farcical idea to start with. Even the best financed / self financed runs by people like Ross Perot couldn't gain enough traction to overcome the very left / extreme right polarization of US politics, and it's only gotten worse.
It makes me think Lessig would do better back with his PAC, however his public relation skills may still hold him back here. Perhaps he is better as the idea guy, and not the public face guy.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Shocker - NOT!
*The Warren faction isn't calling the shots. Yet. And even they have their flaws.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Shocker - NOT!
In my view, the whole Presidential Campaign dog-and-pony show is a giant circus meant to distract the public.
The fact is, it doesn't much matter who gets elected president (as long as it's not Donald Trump).
Despite what the campaigns make it sound like, presidents can't wave a magic wand and change everything. Congress has to agree.
And Congress is rigged.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Shocker - NOT!
He joined the dog and pony show, which to me shows that no matter how intellgent and learned he is, that he has entirely lost the plot on this one.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Shocker - NOT!
Uh - you mean the extreme right / ultra extreme right polarisation of US politics - at lest thats how it looks from Europe.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Shocker - NOT!
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Silly me, but when I look to whether or not a person is in my opinion suitable for a job I look to the job requirements, and our founding document does a very good job about laying out what a President is supposed to do.
Maybe, just maybe, if the candidates spent less time waxing poetic on what is not their job and more time on what is, we might actually accomplish something rather significant, namely, real insight into a candidate's views on what he is supposed to be doing and not on irrelevant issues that are nothing more than talking points in blatant and obvious play for votes from persons who in many respects are largely clueless about what is supposed to be the actual role of the President within our republican form of government.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]