Techdirt Reading List: Larry Lessig's Republic, Lost

from the worth-a-read dept

We're back again with another in our weekly reading list posts, of books we think our community will find interesting and thought provoking. Once again, buying the book via the Amazon links in this story also help support Techdirt.

As you've probably heard by now, Larry Lessig is may be running for President if he's able to raise $1 million by the end of this weekend -- positioning himself as a 100% referendum candidate focused on political corruption and money in politics. His plan is to pass campaign finance reform, and then resign from the Presidency. He's currently right around $750,000, which makes me think he'll make it over the line with a last minute bump.

I'm still not entirely sure what I think of the campaign. As I said in my original post about it, it feels gimmicky and a little nutty. Others have raised more serious concerns, some of which Lessig just tried to respond to, which is worth a read. However, equally worth reading is Lessig's 2011 book about money in politics (and how to fix it): Republic, Lost: How Money Corrupts Congress--and a Plan to Stop It.

As with the fundamentals of Lessig's campaign, I don't agree with the entire book, and I still worry about the serious unintended consequences that may occur based on campaign finance laws that sound good, but may create free expression concerns. That said, Lessig still makes a very compelling argument about just how corrupt the system really is, and how that undermines nearly everything in government. At the very least, if you're considering supporting Lessig (or, even hating on Lessig), you at least owe it to yourself to read his book, in which he lays out his ideas in a very thorough manner. And, yes, if you don't wish to buy the book from Amazon, Lessig also allows for free downloads from his own website, though (obviously) getting it that way doesn't help support Techdirt.

Filed Under: corruption, larry lessig, money in politics, reading list, republic lost, techdirt reading list

Larry Lessig Goes Even Bigger: May Run For President On The Single Issue Of Money In Politics

from the go-big-or-go-home dept

Last year, Larry Lessig got plenty of attention for his MAYDAY PAC, which was an attempt to raise a bunch of money to back candidates who promised to reform campaign finance laws. The 2014 campaign was supposed to be a "test" to raise around $12 million to see what could be done, with an eventual goal of raising a lot more for the 2016 campaign. Even the 2014 campaign was somewhat audacious (and somewhat misunderstood). And after the 2014 election, many argued that MAYDAY was a failure in that it really failed to have much, if any, impact in the campaigns that it took part in. To me, it seemed a bit premature to make that argument, as the whole point of experimenting and testing is to learn, but in politics everything is a horse race, and there is little in the way of long term thinking or strategy.

Either way, just a few weeks ago Lessig announced that he was handing MAYDAY over to Zephyr Teachout, a well-known professor who used to be director of the Sunlight Foundation -- and who caused a political stir last year by doing surprisingly well in running against Andrew Cuomo for governor of NYC. Teachout taking over MAYDAY seemed like a natural fit.

But what of Lessig? His own post mortem on MAYDAY suggested he wasn't ready to give up the fight, and it appears that the results of the first round of the MAYDAY experiment didn't scare him off from taking chances on making incredibly big bets. Crazy bets. Because now he's basically running for President. Sort of. Maybe. You kind of have to watch this video to understand: In short, he wants someone to run as a "referendum candidate" -- someone who will run entirely on this issue of fixing corruption in politics, with the promise that once in office, they will focus on solving that one issue and then resigning immediately, and handing over the job to the Vice President. In this case, the way he'd pursue fixing corruption is to pass The Citizen Equality Act -- a bundle of election reforms that Lessig has been arguing would make a real difference in getting money out of politics. Lessig claims he's been looking for someone else to stand in as that candidate, and will happily focus on someone else if the right candidate emerges -- but, if no one else is able to do it, he'll be that candidate himself.

For now, Lessig is trying to raise $1 million by Labor Day to see if this is possible. If he doesn't raise that much, the plan will be shut down (and no one's money will be taken).

I'm not sure what to make of all of this, frankly. Lessig has been trying for a bunch of moonshot ideas over the past few years -- including holding a new Constitutional Convention, among other ideas like MAYDAY and campaign finance reform. You can't say he isn't being bold and trying some crazy big strategies in trying to make these things an issue. And I really appreciate and respect Lessig and his way of thinking about all of this. But... something about this latest move feels almost too gimmicky. Yes, to get people to actually take on this issue, perhaps a gimmick is needed. And maybe Lessig is right to keep trying ever more audacious gimmicks until he finds the one that clicks. I'm glad he's trying and I hope he succeeds -- and chances are I'll donate to this campaign. But it still feels like a gimmick, and it bugs me that we need gimmicks to fix our political system. I'm guessing that Lessig might actually agree with that statement, but argue that there's no way around this unfortunate fact, so he's going to play the game. I just wish it didn't need to happen that way.

Filed Under: citizen equality act, corruption, larry lessig, money in politics, politics, president, referendum, referendum candidate

Upstart, Anti-Corruption Campaigns In NY, NH Don't Win, But Do Show Growing Anger Over Political Corruption

from the a-good-start,-but-not-over-yet dept

To the "savvy" political insiders, political corruption is still not seen as an election issue that people care about or vote over. We've been discussing a number of attempts to change that -- such as with new anti-corruption PACs -- and two of the political races we've discussed ended yesterday. In both cases, the candidates lost, but they way outperformed their expectations, suggesting that there's a real possibility of a better reaction in the future.

In NY, the Governor/Lt. Governor primary ticket of Zephyr Teachout/Tim Wu was always a tremendous long shot. Going up against a popular incumbent governor in Andrew Cuomo (who also has tremendous NY name recognition as the son of a former -- also tremendously popular -- NY governor), the media more or less ignored any possibility of Teachout succeeding. The campaign had little money and no real established political base. It ran almost entirely on the basis of "Hey, Cuomo is kind of corrupt and lies a lot." Before the election yesterday, an analysis of similar races suggested that incumbent governors in similar primaries often get over 90% of the vote and anything under 70% would be a political disaster for Cuomo, who is hoping to leverage his success in NY into an eventual presidential run. While he did eventually win, it was with about 62% of the vote. Teachout got 34% -- again, with no political machine and very little money. Wu ended up with just over 40%, and his opponent Kathy Hochul (Cuomo's choice) got under 60%.

Obviously, a win would have been a bigger deal, but to come out of nowhere (in just a couple of months), with no huge campaign war chest or connections to traditional politics -- against such a well-known governor, basing most of their campaign on corruption issues -- this suggests that corruption absolutely can play as an election issue. Teachout and Wu had one paid staffer and four volunteers. Cuomo has a campaign war chest in the many millions. And he still could only barely crack 60% of the vote. That says something. Also interesting is the fact that Teachout and Wu actually won in many rural upstate counties. The campaign had been expecting a weaker showing there (Hochul is from upstate, and Teachout and Wu are based in Manhattan -- which they also won). Again, while losing the overall race, the strong showing is a good sign for future campaigns.

Meanwhile, up in New Hampshire, we'd discussed the campaign of Jim Rubens for the Senate, against carpetbagging Scott Brown (who jumped states from Massachusetts after losing his Senate seat there). Early on, Rubens was basically a complete nobody. While he'd been in NH politics in the past, he hadn't actually occupied a political office since the 1990s. He was basically roadkill for the political machine of Scott Brown. However Larry Lessig's Mayday PAC noted that Rubens was the only Republican candidate running on an anti-corruption platform to limit the influence of money in politics. Mayday PAC spent heavily on campaign ads for Rubens, and he ended up getting around 24% of the vote, with Brown pulling in less than 50%.

In the end, both of these campaigns obviously lost -- but they were interesting experiments with important lessons. Two upstart campaigns from totally different sides of the traditional political spectrum (Zephyr/Wu to the "left" and Rubens to the "right"), both of which made anti-corruption efforts a key plank in their campaigns. Both were considered barely worth mentioning at the beginnings of the campaigns. Both were up against incredibly well-known, well-funded political machines with national name recognition and ambition. Neither campaign had any significant money. And both actually performed decently despite their disadvantages.

In the end, both campaigns definitely did lose, but they showed how there's clearly a dissatisfaction with the traditional political machine. And if two such tiny, out-of-nowhere campaigns could do that, hopefully it means that future campaigns can do even more.

Filed Under: andrew cuomo, corruption, kathy hochul, larry lessig, money in politics, new hampshire, new york, politics, primaries, scott brown, tim wu, zephyr teachout
Companies: mayday pac

Former Senator Scott Brown's Staff Sends Larry Lessig A Letter Demanding He Stop Referring To Brown As A 'Lobbyist'

from the stop-using-the-truth-to-smear-our-candidate! dept

Larry Lessig's new SuperPAC must be making a few people in Washington nervous. That's the only thing that could explain former Sen. Scott Brown's office sending a little hate mail demanding an apology for calling the former politician a "lobbyist." [PDF link]

Sent by Colin Reed, the campaign manager for New Hampshire for Scott Brown, the letter opens this way and doesn't let up.

Your MAYDAY Super PAC has issued a piece of mail to New Hampshire voters falsely calling Scott Brown a 'Washington lobbyist.' This is a flat-out lie.

Scott Brown is not nor has he ever been a lobbyist. Ever. We call on you to immediately cease and desist with the mailer in question, and to use one of your various media appearances as a purported authority on ethics to retract your falsehood.

As Lessig points out, Brown not being a lobbyist largely depends on what a normal person would think a lobbyist is. He quotes The Hill, which details Brown's post-Senate employment.

I take it Mr. Reed’s outrage is triggered by the Senate’s regulations of what constitutes being a “lobbyist” for purposes of the Senate rules. I hadn’t received the memo that explained that the English language is now regulated by the rules of the United States Senate. If there is such a memo, they should send it to The Hill too. Here are a few snippets of what they reported last March:

Brown has joined Nixon Peabody, a law and lobby firm, as counsel in the firm’s Boston office. The Massachusetts Republican, also a former state senator, will concentrate his practice on “business and governmental affairs as they relate to the financial services industry as well as on commercial real estate matters,” according to the firm.

Nixon Peabody has a burgeoning K Street practice, having made more than $1.5 million in lobbying fees for all of 2012, according to the Center for Responsive Politics...

So yes, according to the Senate, Scott Brown isn’t a “lobbyist.” But I submit to anyone else in the world, a former Senator joining a “law and lobbying firm” to help with Wall St’s “business and governmental affairs” is to make him a lobbyist. Because to anyone else in the world, when you sell your influence to affect “business and governmental affairs,” you are a lobbyist.

Other news sources agree. Brown now holds the position of "counsel" in a lobbying firm. This may not exactly make him a lobbyist but it certainly makes him more lobbyist than "counsel." The only thing likely preventing Brown from retaining the title of 'lobbyist' are rules meant to keep this sort of revolving-door behavior from being so blatant and prevalent.

The Boston Globe noted Monday that while Brown himself will not be a lobbyist — Senators may not lobby their former colleagues for the first two years after leaving office, under the Honest Leadership and Open Government Act of 2007 — “he will be leaning heavily on his Washington contacts to drum up business for the firm.” The position will also allow him “to begin cashing in on his contacts with the financial services industry, which he helped oversee in the Senate.”

So, not technically a lobbyist but as close to a lobbyist as one can get. The overblown letter also calls into question Lessig's "Harvard code of conduct" and hilariously refers to the Mayday SuperPAC's letter as evidence of Lessig's "partisan political agenda" -- apparently unaware of the fact that Lessig is backing a Republican candidate against Brown in the upcoming New Hampshire election.

The letter wraps up with the following threat:

If you fail to immediately cease the mailer in question, we are leaving all our legal options on the table.

Lessig has responded to this angry letter in three ways, all of which suggest a dearth of respect for Scott Brown or his purported legal representation. First, there's the last line of his blog post about the letter:

And finally, as for those “legal options” that Mr. Reed says he’s “leaving on the table,” let me offer the words of Harry Callahan: “Go ahead. Make my day.”

And this tweet.

Yea, an institution that calls ketchup a vegetable doesn't get to tell me how to speak English. http://t.co/mjBTc4bNP0

— Lessig (@lessig) September 7, 2014

If you can't read the tweet, it says:

Yea, an institution that calls ketchup a vegetable doesn't get to tell me how to speak English.

And, finally, Lessig did, in fact, change Mayday's ad as follows. The top one is the original ad, the bottom one is the "new" ad:
Someone set the "table." I'll make popcorn.

Filed Under: influence, jim rubens, larry lessig, lobbying, lobbyist, money in politics, scott brown
Companies: mayday pac

Two SuperPACs Focused On Ending SuperPACs Release New TV Commercials

from the gotta-spend-the-money-to-stop-the-money dept

We've been writing up some of the new political efforts to try to put some limits on money in politics, including Larry Lessig's Mayday SuperPAC, Represent.us' satirical campaign for the "most honest politician," Gil Fulbright, and also CounterPAC, a SuperPAC that tries to get politicians to take a pledge not to accept dark money.

They're all moving forward with their goals, and two new commercials have come out that are worth highlighting. First, Represent.us has teamed up with Mayday in their effort to promote Jim Rubens, the (generally considered to be a long shot) candidate for Senate in New Hampshire. They've sent "Gil Fulbright" to New Hampshire to "campaign" for Rubens' opponent (and former Massachusetts Senator) Scott Brown. The ad is well worth watching: In case you can't watch it, here's a basic transcript of the text stated by the exceptionally honest Gil Fulbright:

I'm a career politician and this is an unprovoked attack on Jim Rubens. And I'm in it!

You see, me and my buddy, Scott Brown (shows picture of Brown making the "call me" sign), we want to take your tax dollars and hand them out to the cronies and lobbyists who bankroll our political campaigns.

But this Jim Rubens guy? He wants to stop corruption in Washington. He thinks it's his job to help the people of New Hampshire.

Career politicians like me? We've got a sweet thing going on. Do not let Jim Rubens screw that up.

This is a bit different from some of Mayday's earliest commercial spots which I thought were a bit weak. Frankly the first few radio ads (which, for some reason seem to have disappeared from Soundcloud where they were) sounded a little off. Lessig is a great presenter, but I'm not sure he's the best radio voice. Though, the latest TV commercial for Ruben Gallego (which also uses Lessig's voiceover) is stronger than those first few radio ads: Finally, CounterPAC has also launched its first TV ads, including this one involving a sky diver, calling on Georgia Senate candidates Michelle Nunn and David Perdue to pledge to deny dark money in their campaigns (they also have a nearly identical ad targeting Alaska Senate candidates Mark Begich and Dan Sullivan). The production value of the ad is a bit weak, and it kind of buries the point of the ad, which is unfortunate.

Either way, we're seeing the first steps of these efforts to try to limit the impact of money in politics and it will be worth watching how these various campaigns work out.

Filed Under: commercials, dark money, gil fulbright, jim rubens, larry lessig, money in politics, scott brown, superpacs
Companies: counterpac, mayday pac, represent.us

Awesome Stuff: One Last Chance To Join With Thousands Of Others To Help Limit The Influence Of Money In Politics

from the don't-let-cynicism-get-in-the-way dept

Okay, we've written about Larry Lessig's Mayday PAC a bunch of times already, including when it launched, when it hit its first target of $1 million (which was then matched by donors for another $1 million), and again when the second round launched with a goal of raising $5 million (again to be matched with another $5 million) by July 4th.

Guess what? Today is July 4th, and the campaign ends today.

And you have a chance to help determine if it meets that $5 million goal or not. While there's been a big last minute push from a variety of places, as I write this, the campaign is still significantly short of its target goal. There is a very real chance that it won't reach the $5 million. And that would be unfortunate. So, today is basically a big chance for you to make a statement about trying to limit the impact of money in politics. One note on cynicism: pretty much every time we've written about this, the comments have been filled with people cynically trashing the idea either based on the argument that it's impossible to get rid of the influence of money in politics or because Lessig hasn't taken a specific issue on a particular pet issue (term limits is one that comes up often enough). Personally, I find this disingenuous and disappointing. It seems like people are actively looking for ways to keep the status quo, rather than to represent any real challenge to it at all. This kind of attitude is a self-fulfilling prophecy that only keeps things the way they are.

No one knows for sure if Lessig's plans will have any real impact, but I know of no one who has put as much time, thought and effort into tackling the problem of the corrupting influence of money in politics. For every simplistic point that someone has for why this plan or that plan won't work, Lessig has a detailed, fact-based or data-based answer. This isn't just some randomly idealistic person with a dream. This is someone who has dedicated a huge chunk of his life and intellectual resources towards really tackling the problem in a realistic and doable way. Even if I don't know all of the details, if there's one person who can actively make a difference, who has thought through the pros and cons of basically every possible approach, it's Larry Lessig.

Go ahead and be cynical, if you must. But think about what that cynicism leads to in the end. Even if the MAYDAY PAC fails, isn't it better that they have a chance to succeed, rather than killing it off from the start so you can sound smart about how you knew it wouldn't work?

Filed Under: cynicism, larry lessig, mayday, mayday citizens pac, money in politics, politics, superpac

Awesome Stuff: Crowdfunding To Get Money Out Of Politics... Now With Steve Wozniak!

from the mayday! dept

Two weeks ago, we took a slight detour from our usual Awesome Stuff fare to talk about Larry Lessig's new crowdfunding project, MAYDAY.US, which aims to start a serious effort to significantly reduce the influence of money in politics. This week we're highlighting MAYDAY.US again, since it just received a major boost in the form of a video endorsement from Steve Wozniak:

The project already completed its first phase, raising $1-million and securing another million in matching funds, and now it's partway through the second, which has a goal of $5-million (and another $5-million to match). With two weeks left to go, it's got some distance to make up, so now is the time to use your money to fight back against the corrosive influence of money in politics. It could be awesome.

Filed Under: awesome stuff, larry lessig, mayday, mayday citizens superpac, mayday superpac, money in politics, steve wozniak

Awesome Stuff: Crowdfund Our Way To Reducing The Influence Of Money In Politics

from the a-different-sort-of-crowdfunding-campaign dept

Okay, so each week for our awesome stuff post about crowdfunding projects, we look at a variety of interesting projects for weird, funky, innovative and interesting products that are being offered on platforms like Kickstarter and Indiegogo. This week is going to be a bit different. We're just going to point people to a single project: Larry Lessig's MAYDAY.US. And, yes, we already wrote about this at the beginning of May when the first phase launched, and again when it hit the $1 million goal -- and then secured the second million in matching funds. However, the project has now moved into phase two, where the goal is to raise (and match) $5 million, instead of just $1 million. Already it's around half a million dollars, so there's a long way to go, but it's a good start. And, once again, the goal here is to raise this total of $12 million ($1 million + $1 million match in May, and then $5 million + $5 million match in June) as a test for a much larger effort. I've seen too many overly cynical folks say "$12 million isn't enough to change politics." And you're right. But that's not the goal. This is $12 million to be used in specific races as a proof of concept for a much larger moonshot. But to make that happen, this campaign needs to get to $5 million by the end of June. If that happens, it will truly fit into the category of "awesome stuff."

Filed Under: awesome stuff, crowdfunding, larry lessig, mayday, mayday citizens superpac, mayone, money in politics

Non-Luddite Alternative To The Authors Guild Launching

from the good-to-see-some-competition dept

Over the past few years, we've written more than a few times about the incredibly short-sighted and backwards looking positions of the Authors Guild, an organization that appears to (a) hate technology and (b) be almost entirely focused on protecting the business model that only allows a very, very, very small number of authors to make a living. Beyond its highly publicized fight against book scanning (which it has lost in every round so far), the Guild has lashed out at libraries, ebooks, Amazon and the internet in general. You may also remember a few years ago when the Authors Guild freaked out about an Amazon Kindle feature that would read books aloud.

The Authors Guild has shown time and time again that its main interest is in trying to hold back the tide of progress, keep out competition, and basically hope against hope that maybe, just maybe, it can bring back those days when top authors didn't have to interact with fans, and didn't have to worry about successful authors going direct. Many, many authors with more progressive views of the internet have spoken out against the Authors Guild, as they recognize that it isn't representing the interests of most authors at all.

So it's good to see that an alternative, the Authors Alliance, is about to launch, put together by law professor Pamela Samuelson and sporting a rather impressive advisory board of folks, including Larry Lessig, Jonathan Lethem, Cory Doctorow, Robert Pinsky, Brewster Kahle, Lewis Hyde, Jonathan Zittrain, Kevin Kelly, Ed Felten and many other big authors and thinkers. I'm a little disappointed that the advisory board doesn't have a Barry Eisler or Joe Konrath on the list, as it does appear to be somewhat lacking in folks who have had tremendous success outside the traditional publishing system, but it's still an impressive start.

Filed Under: authors, copyright, cory doctorow, internet, larry lessig, luddites, pam samuelson, trade groups
Companies: authors alliance, authors guild

Lessig's Anti-SuperPAC SuperPAC Raises First $1 Million In Just 12 Days

from the off-to-a-great-start dept

We're a little late on this (past few days have been quite busy...) but Larry Lessig's SuperPAC to end all SuperPACs has hit its first target way early. As you hopefully remember, the goal was to reach $1 million in 30 days, which would then be matched by an (as yet) unknown donor, followed by a second campaign to raise $5 million in June -- again matched by a donor. The plan then would be to use the $12 million to work on a few specific Congressional races to prove that it can have an impact, and then kick off in 2015 with a much bigger campaign to have an even larger impact. There's still a long way to go, but this seems like a great start: Hopefully Lessig and the organization he's putting together will release some more data as well. $85 average is good to see, though I'd love to see more information on the breakdown of donations, including some sense of the distribution and median donations as well.

Filed Under: larry lessig, mayday citizens superpac, mayone, superpacs