Democrats Screw Over Larry Lessig To Keep Him Out Of The Debates; Forces Lessig To Drop His Campaign

from the what's-up-dems? dept

Mon, Nov 2nd 2015 11:42am — Mike Masnick

Ever since Larry Lessig announced his campaign for the Presidency a few months ago, we noted that it wasn't just a long shot, but seemed more like a gimmick to get the (very real) issue of political corruption into the debates. I like Larry quite a bit and support many of his efforts, but this one did seem kind of crazy. I'm glad that he's willing to take on crazy ideas to see if they'll work, because that's how real change eventually comes about, but the whole thing did seem a bit quixotic. That said, the last thing I expected was that the Democratic Party would be so scared of him as to flat out lie and change the rules to keep his ideas from reaching the public. Yet, that's what it did, and because of that, Lessig has dropped his campaign for the Presidency. You can see the video of him explaining this decision below: An article from one of his advisers, Steve Jarding, explains the situation in more detail. We already knew that the Democratic Party had tried to keep him out of the debates by not "officially" welcoming him to the race -- as it had done with candidates like Jim Webb and Lincoln Chaffee who had raised less money and were polling lower than Lessig. And many polling operations hadn't included Lessig in their polls because they relied on the DNC's official welcome to start polling.

In response, Lessig had dropped his original gimmicky promise to resign the Presidency after getting campaign finance reform through Congress. Based on that, it was expected that the DNC would recognize his campaign. In the meantime, more polling operations started putting Lessig in their polls, and he was polling over 1% -- which was the threshold that the DNC had clearly told Lessig's campaign was necessary to cross to get into the debates. In fact, Lessig's campaign had specifically asked and gotten confirmation on the rules:

The DNC's rules for candidate participation in their debates were pretty straightforward--or so we thought. In August, before the Lessig campaign began, DNC Chair, Debbie Wasserman-Schultz, announced the standards for being included in the debates. As she described the rule, a candidate had to have 1 percent in three DNC sanctioned national polls, "in the six weeks prior to the debate."

Hitting 1 percent would not be easy, but it was possible. And indeed, at the end of August already one national polling firm, PPP, found Lessig at 1 percent nationally.

Yet, about this time, Lessig's campaign manager received a troubling email from the DNC, suggesting the debate participation standards were different. The email included a memo that stated that the three polls had to be "at least six weeks prior to the" debate--contradicting what Wasserman-Schultz had said that they could be "in the six weeks prior to the debate." To try to clear up the contradiction, I arranged a call with the DNC. On that call, the DNC political director confirmed to me the rule was as the Chair had stated it--three polls finding 1 percent "in the six weeks prior to the debate."

But... then the rules magically changed, despite the fact that it shows that the previous debate wouldn't have allowed some candidates if the DNC had followed the same rules:

And indeed, that is precisely the rule that was applied in the first debate. As CNN specified in a late September memo, to qualify a candidate had to poll at 1 percent in the "polls released between August 1, 2015 and October 10, 2015." The first debate was October 12.

So, we believed we had our guidelines. And as such, we worked hard--and spent our campaign's resources--to meet this clarified goal. It wasn't easy, as most of the national polls didn't even include Lessig's name. But then a week ago, a Monmouth poll of Democrats nationally found him at the qualifying percentage. Then an NBC poll found the same. HuffPost Pollster now lists three polls at 1%. Since the Monmouth poll, no poll that included Lessig's name found him with anything less than 1%.

The new rules, which seem solely designed to block Lessig out:

Late last week, the DNC again changed the rules for participation in the debates. Just at the point that it seemed Lessig was about to get in, the DNC has shut the door.

We were informed of this change in a phone call late last week that I had with the DNC political director. During that call, I was told that the DNC participation standard for the debates was for a candidate to be at one percent in three polls conducted, "six weeks prior to the debate"--not the clarified rule cited earlier by Wasserman-Shultz and the DNC political director that a candidate had to be at one percent in three polls conducted "in the six weeks prior to the debate." To further make the point, the political director confirmed the new rule in a follow-up email to me.

Under this new rule, Lessig obviously cannot qualify for the November 14 debate. He would have had to qualify four weeks ago! Under this new rule, all the work--and expense--of the past four weeks has been for naught. The door has been shut. By DNC mandate, Larry Lessig won't be participating in the Democratic Party debates.

This seems pretty fucked up. Yes, politics is a nasty business, but let's face it: Lessig had no chance to win, but could have had a real impact on the campaigns and what followed by participating in the debates. And he did everything by the rules... and still got fucked over for it.

If Debbie Wasserman-Shultz and the Democratic National Party wanted to do a job highlighting just how corrupt the process is, they just did a great job.

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: debates, debbie wasserman-schultz, democratic party, dnc, larry lessig, polls, presidential campaign

56 Comments

If you liked this post, you may also be interested in...

Reader Comments

Subscribe: RSS

View by: Time | Thread

Anonymous Coward, 2 Nov 2015 @ 11:58am

What a terribly executed campaign. Lessig is a smart guy and so I wonder how this turned into such a mess? I wonder who is responsible for the initial win-then-resign strategy?
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
- art guerrilla (profile), 2 Nov 2015 @ 2:48pm
  
  Re:
  yep, thought the 'step-down' gimmick was stupid for a lot of reasons, the least of which is it would provide some excuse for the dem rats to exclude him...
  (for example: IF we great unwashed *DID* elect a man running on such reform issues, AND we thought he could achieve them, WHY wouldn't we REALLY want him as a 'full-time' president to confront ALL the other issues similarly ? ? ?)
  
  otherwise, you only had to remember a *little* bit of his story to see how nader, jackson (shirley and jesse and scoop) et al have been treated by the dem rats (and rethugs) in unfairly, illegally excluding various qualified candidates...
  funny how that works: lamestream candidates whose mom is not going to vote for them, get in the debates; 'outsiders', semi-progressives, etc who meet ALL the criteria, get the door slammed in their face...
  huh, is there a pattern there ? ? ?
  this whole bullshit of how the dem rats and rethugs have control of the 'debates' is corrupt from the get-go...
  [ link to this | view in chronology ]
- This comment has been flagged by the community. Click here to show it
  
  Whatever (profile), 2 Nov 2015 @ 5:36pm
  
  Re:
  His campaign was all but non-existent. His campaign platform was a single skinny plank about campaign reform. His political profile so low as to be nearly invisible.
  
  Of course the Democrats "clarified" the rules to make sure he's not in the debate, because he was trying to use the debate to further "brand Lessig" and not about any true aspiration towards being President. He tried to build himself up at the cost of the Democratic party, and instead has wasted a million dollars of other people's money.
  
  Oh wait, another way Lessig is like Nina Paley: people very good at spending others people's money.
  [ link to this | view in chronology ]
  - techflaws (profile), 2 Nov 2015 @ 10:00pm
    
    Re: Re:
    And there's your non-extremist views again. Funny that.
    [ link to this | view in chronology ]
- Anonymous Coward, 3 Nov 2015 @ 5:51am
  
  Re:
  Lessig isn't a smart guy. He's an egomaniac.
  [ link to this | view in chronology ]
  - Anonymous Coward, 3 Nov 2015 @ 7:37am
    
    Re: Re:
    Yes, because wanting a democracy ran by the people and not corporations makes him an egomaniac right? I guess we're all egomaniacs because we think that we the people, and not the corporations, should be in charge of our government.
    [ link to this | view in chronology ]
Bamboo Harvester (profile), 2 Nov 2015 @ 12:01pm

No real surprise
Nothing on his platform would make Hilary look better, and may have forced a "moderator" to ask her uncomfortable questions.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
- Mason Wheeler (profile), 2 Nov 2015 @ 12:14pm
  
  Re: No real surprise
  Precisely. The more you look at it, the more it appears that the entirety of the Democratic debate system this time around is designed to turn it into a coronation for Hillary and shut down anyone and anything that gets in the way. Seeing as how she's thoroughly corrupt from beginning to end, the worst thing that could possibly happen to her would be to give serious attention to a candidate whose strongest issue is fighting corruption!
  [ link to this | view in chronology ]
  - Anonymous Coward, 2 Nov 2015 @ 12:16pm
    
    Re: Re: No real surprise
    Essentially what we have in this country are mock elections.
    [ link to this | view in chronology ]
    - David, 4 Nov 2015 @ 12:28am
      
      Re: Re: Re: No real surprise
      What more do you need for mock presidents? If he/she tries to get the Constitution back as the rule of the land, he's dead. Nobody who had the life style even making it possible to become president wants to end like JFK.
      
      Yes, a lot of power runs through the hands of the elected sock puppet. No, that does not mean that it's free to use it according to its own whim.
      [ link to this | view in chronology ]
Anonymous Coward, 2 Nov 2015 @ 12:03pm

While Lessig didn't have a chance of winning, in retrospect, I think his attempt to run for presidency was a good thing because it helps expose how low the corrupt establishment will stoop to keep corruption in politics. Allowing us to document and spread this gives us more ammunition to explain and spread to everyone how unfair and corrupt the system is.

But, more realistically, why doesn't Lessig run for Congress? While running he can also help us document the process, the politics, and any corruption involved. If he does win then he can run for president next term and will have a much higher chance of getting higher polls. Then he can more easily make it in the debates and discuss the issue.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
- Anonymous Coward, 2 Nov 2015 @ 12:05pm
  
  Re:
  It's funny how, in one of the Republican debates, the republicans twisted the issue with Comey and what he said about crime.
  [ link to this | view in chronology ]
  - Anonymous Coward, 2 Nov 2015 @ 12:13pm
    
    Re: Re:
    Err ... this was meant to be a reply to Bamboo Harvester (profile), Nov 2nd, 2015 @ 12:01pm to point out how useless the moderators are at asking hard questions.
    [ link to this | view in chronology ]
aethercowboy (profile), 2 Nov 2015 @ 12:06pm

Anybody else reminded of Kasparov's run for President?
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
David, 2 Nov 2015 @ 12:10pm

Well, looks like someone got a phone call.
We don't want this guy in a public debate giving people ideas. Make sure it doesn't happen, or we'll be pulling our money out of the "Democratic" campaigns. It will be quite more expensive to get rid of him at a later point of time. For us, and for you.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Anonymous Coward, 2 Nov 2015 @ 12:25pm

Ross Perot went through the same issue, but he had the money to do it himself, It's a sad day for the Democrats ,even if Lessig didn't rock the polls he would have been a high value intellectual speaker for the party.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
- Anonymous Coward, 2 Nov 2015 @ 12:42pm
  
  Re:
  He could run for other elections (like Congress) and bring up these issues during his campaign. Gotta start someplace.
  [ link to this | view in chronology ]
- Anonymous Coward, 2 Nov 2015 @ 2:49pm
  
  Re:
  Yes, Ross Perot had enough of his own money to campaign. BUT he ran as an independent, which likely doomed his campaign from the start. All he ended up doing was to siphon votes from the other 2 candidates, and IIRC resulted in an election where nobody got over 50% of the popular vote.
  [ link to this | view in chronology ]
  - jupiterkansas (profile), 3 Nov 2015 @ 7:17am
    
    Re: Re:
    I'd much rather have 3-5 candidates and a divided vote than an overwhelming majority between two candidates.
    [ link to this | view in chronology ]
    - Anonymous Coward, 3 Nov 2015 @ 7:39am
      
      Re: Re: Re:
      The problems with first past the post
      
      https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=s7tWHJfhiyo
      [ link to this | view in chronology ]
      - Anonymous Coward, 3 Nov 2015 @ 7:39am
        
        Re: Re: Re: Re:
        You should also see the alternative vote explained
        https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=3Y3jE3B8HsE
        [ link to this | view in chronology ]
        
        jupiterkansas (profile), 3 Nov 2015 @ 10:52am
        
        Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:
        So the problem and possible solution.
        [ link to this | view in chronology ]
radix (profile), 2 Nov 2015 @ 12:26pm

Lessig: "Hey Democrats, let me into your club so I can get on TV and tell people how corrupt you all are."

Democrats: "Uh, no thanks."

Did he really envision the exchange going any other way? He has an admirable goal, but this isn't a fight you can win by playing by the rules you are explicitly decrying.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
- JoeCool (profile), 2 Nov 2015 @ 1:37pm
  
  Re:
  According to the Democrats, only Republicans are corrupt. Democrats are shining beacons of light! Just look at Hillary as a prime example. ;)
  [ link to this | view in chronology ]
  - Anonymous Coward, 3 Nov 2015 @ 5:23am
    
    Re: Re:
    Yep, this exactly. The Dems are morally bankrupt. All you have to do to see that is look at Hillary as their best presidential candidate.
    [ link to this | view in chronology ]
    - Wendy Cockcroft, 3 Nov 2015 @ 5:51am
      
      Re: Re: Re:
      Both Kodos and Kang are corrupt, it's a matter of which flavour you prefer. Would you like your authoritarian regime with political correctness or puritanical zealotry?
      [ link to this | view in chronology ]
      - JoeCool (profile), 3 Nov 2015 @ 9:29pm
        
        Re: Re: Re: Re:
        Don't look at me! I voted for KANG! :)
        
        I also like South Park's take on it. I voted for Giant Douche.
        
        In all seriousness, I voted third party for almost 30 years before finally quiting voting altogether. There simply isn't anyone worth voting for by the time you reach the main elections. Other than the rare Congress-critter and local dog-catcher, I would vote "none of the above" if it were on the ballot.
        [ link to this | view in chronology ]
Anonymous Coward, 2 Nov 2015 @ 12:30pm

I guess getting invited to the debate is a bit like being selected for jury duty -- if you've got some brain cells to knock together and seem to have your own ideas, no chance, both sides won't want you and you're out.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
- Anonymous Coward, 2 Nov 2015 @ 12:59pm
  
  Re:
  At least in a trial, there's usually at least one side that prefers an intelligent, thoughtful, common-sense, honest, trustworthy juror... and one side that doesn't.
  
  Unfortunately, either side can choose to eliminate the smart one, so they don't tend to make it in.
  
  In politics, on the other hand, brainless, corrupt puppets are far more valuable, regardless of which side.
  [ link to this | view in chronology ]
- Anonymous Coward, 2 Nov 2015 @ 5:19pm
  
  Re:
  He's the smart guy willing to serve on a jury, but is so honest that when questioned, he admits that he thinks jury nullification is a valid option.
  [ link to this | view in chronology ]
Chris Rhodes (profile), 2 Nov 2015 @ 12:32pm

Flashbacks to Ron Paul's Campaign
Remember: Your vote is really important! Not in the "representation" manner, mind you, but in the "we need your sanction to abuse you" manner.

Now get in line and pull the lever for one of our carefully pre-selected candidates. Which lever doesn't matter, just as long as you pull a lever.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
- jupiterkansas (profile), 2 Nov 2015 @ 2:22pm
  
  Re: Flashbacks to Ron Paul's Campaign
  Actually, they don't care if you pull the lever either. Best to just stay home and let them pick.
  [ link to this | view in chronology ]
Marc John Randazza (profile), 2 Nov 2015 @ 12:36pm

"A better candidate could have gone further."

That quote makes me respect Lessig a lot. I've alway thought highly of him since he published a piece criticizing himself for losing Eldred v. Ashcroft. (http://www.legalaffairs.org/issues/March-April-2004/story_lessig_marapr04.msp)

I greatly respect his self-reflection and his humility in the face of a loss.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
NeghVar (profile), 2 Nov 2015 @ 12:38pm

Status Quo
Even if you are of the same party, if you threaten the status quo, you will be destroyed. This is also why the republicans have a war on two fronts. The left and the conservatives
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
- Shmerl, 2 Nov 2015 @ 1:39pm
  
  Re: Status Quo
  To change the status quo, the duopoly of two parties should change first to something more democratic.
  [ link to this | view in chronology ]
Shmerl, 2 Nov 2015 @ 1:38pm

He is in the wrong party
He should push the Pirate Party instead.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
- Andrew (profile), 3 Nov 2015 @ 9:29am
  
  Re: He is in the wrong party
  we released a statement on that yesterday (http://uspirates.org/us-pirate-party-lessig-and-the-state-of-us-democracy/), the problem is the ballot access laws across most of the US are some of the strictest and most difficult to follow regulations, PLUS there's 51 of them - one per state (and DC) as well as federal funding (FEC) regulations.
  
  That's why there's so few parties in the US.
  [ link to this | view in chronology ]
Anonymous Coward, 2 Nov 2015 @ 2:42pm

He wasn't a great politician or a great speaker. But still, he could have pushed a dialogue on the Democratic side in the right direction.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Clouser, 2 Nov 2015 @ 3:02pm

Run as a Libertarian
Larry Lessig chose the wrong party, that is all. He chose the Republicrat party -- We know the Demopub party is corrupt to the core, and screws good candidates over, look what they did to the Good Doctor in the last election. Dr. Ron Paul got taken out as well by stupid rule changes and dirty politis. Forget the Demopubs, instead, the Libertarian Party would suit Larry Lessig better. He sounds like a Libertarian to me. Exactly like one.

How about a Gary Johnson - Larry Lessig duo for President and VP? Now that is an enticing ticket! I hope Larry comes back and joins the Libertarians in the run and resumes his vigor and trys to win. Gary has filed a lawsuit over unfair debates. Perfect timing.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Mark Wing, 2 Nov 2015 @ 3:34pm

Lessig screwed himself. He should've come out swinging for the fences, unambiguously, and he didn't do that. He gave most people a WTF moment he won't recover from this election cycle.

In the words of my longtime mentor, some people are too smart to die their damn shoes. Lessig did what many geniuses do, he overthought the problem. And in the words of Marlin Brando, "he coulda been a contender."

As long as Bernie isn't president in 2020, then I will vote for Lessig if he runs a legit campaign. He would make a great VP as well. Nobody wanted Gore as president either, but he got more done as a VP than most do as POTUS. Bernie / Lessig for 2016--sign me up for that shit.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Sneedurn, 2 Nov 2015 @ 6:05pm

DNC, like republicans, is scared shitless of Sanders.
Lessig in the "debates" would have emphasized Sanders' strongest suit...corporate money has corrupted the entire political system, including the party machinery. That means the DNC would (rightly) be called out as part of the corruption plaguing our democracy. Sanders will win by a landslide if in a "debate" he simply lists the abuses of various big money sectors against the public, and points out that the democratic party and candidates all are beholden to those same big money sectors...and he is not, and will work to end that corruption.

He could not be stopped if he switched to independent AFTER winning the democratic primary, because of corruption within the party.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
- Anonymous Coward, 3 Nov 2015 @ 5:26am
  
  Re: DNC, like republicans, is scared shitless of Sanders.
  I would hope the voting public would not hand him a landslide win. While corporate run parties is a problem, turning to socialism is a far bigger problem.
  [ link to this | view in chronology ]
  - Andrew (profile), 3 Nov 2015 @ 8:03pm
    
    Re: Re: DNC, like republicans, is scared shitless of Sanders.
    Would you care to explain why that is, Rep McCarthy?
    [ link to this | view in chronology ]
Dan, 2 Nov 2015 @ 8:27pm

I was initially intrigued with Lessig's campaign, up until he penned an essay against gun ownership. Just what we need, another democrat appeasing Bloomberg and his gun grabber lobbyists.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
David, 3 Nov 2015 @ 1:29am

They pulled a Khanna on him
With his agenda, he does not really have a place within the encrusted parties. He really has no option rather than running for a third party or as an independent.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Rekrul, 3 Nov 2015 @ 3:06am

Yes, politics is a nasty business, but let's face it: Lessig had no chance to win, but could have had a real impact on the campaigns...

And that right there is why he had no chance of getting in. Did anyone really think that they were going to allow someone in who would rock the boat?
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
- Anonymous Coward, 3 Nov 2015 @ 5:43am
  
  Re:
  Well, they did let in Jim Webb, who's views are more of the typical chickenhawk neocon republican type (same as Hitlery, but even scarier, imagine Robert Kagan showing up as a contender for the R's). T
  [ link to this | view in chronology ]
Wendy Cockcroft, 3 Nov 2015 @ 5:46am

I vaguely remember something similar happening in 2012 with the Ron Paul candidacy at the RNC. Am I right?
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Anonymous Coward, 3 Nov 2015 @ 7:23am

Debbie Wasserman-Shultz is trying to protect Clinton. She formerly worked on Clinton's campaign.

Wasserman-Shultz is corrupt. Clinton is corrupt.

Larry's anti-corruption crusade stands to hurt Clinton the most, because she is the rockstar of raising money from wealthy special interests.

Don't think that the Dems are the party of enlightenment. The conservatives may also be backwards socially, but both parties are completely bought and paid-for by the elite. 2016 will be a decision between a giant douche and a turd sandwich.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
- David, 3 Nov 2015 @ 8:06am
  
  Re:
  2016 will be a decision between a giant douche and a turd sandwich.
  
  Can't we use the giant douche to flush out the turd from the sandwich? Maybe we'll at least have some reasonably clean lettuce leaves afterwards.
  [ link to this | view in chronology ]
Anonymous Coward, 3 Nov 2015 @ 8:21am

Lessig was dragging his feet , had he stepped up earlier I think things may have went a different way.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Not a bleeping moron like some people I see, 3 Nov 2015 @ 9:24am

Trump sucks
He reminds me of Hitler spewing his political BULLSHIT out across the waves. His latest bidding, telling less popular gops to drop out of the race seems like it comes directly from Clinton.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Coyne Tibbets (profile), 3 Nov 2015 @ 9:30am

Wing Nuts R Us
The Democratic party prefers to avoid coddling outrageous candidates. Unlike the opposition Wing Nuts R Us™ party.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Anonymous Coward, 3 Nov 2015 @ 10:46am

He certainly made his point about corruption. Shame it's going to get buried by the corrupt people currently running things.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Spaceman Spiff (profile), 3 Nov 2015 @ 7:18pm

Catch-22 anyone?
First, Wasserman-Schultz has to go. Second, Lessig should be in the debates - he is one of the few truly honest candidates. So, I think that W-S has taken too much of Joseph Heller's book to heart - and all of the bad stuff at that! Lessig must feel a bit like Yossarian and all... :-(
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
trinsic, 3 Nov 2015 @ 11:28pm

Whats funny to me is people still invest their time into the system with evidence time after time showing the corruption. It will never change, what we need to do is divest from federal government and work at the local level to make changes.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]