Pages

Tuesday, October 18, 2011

Money and Congress

                                                                                                               

A former supporter of President Obama, Harvard Prof. Lawrence Lessig presents a highly engaging thesis that Occupy Wall Street and The Tea Party need to find common ground in opposition to legislative stasis.


***




Lawrence Lessig: "Republic, Lost"

Tuesday, October 18, 2011 - 11:06 a.m.
This photo taken Oct. 7, 2011, shows Barbara Diamond, 63, who is retired, and her husband Steve, a physician, who traveled nearly 100 miles from Bethlehem, Pa., to take part in the Occupy Wall Street protest at Zuccotti Park in Manhattan. They said they are concerned about the influence of corporations and wealthy people on politics and economic stress on the middle class.  - (AP Photo/Eileen Connelly)
This photo taken Oct. 7, 2011, shows Barbara Diamond, 63, who is retired, and her husband Steve, a physician, who traveled nearly 100 miles from Bethlehem, Pa., to take part in the Occupy Wall Street protest at Zuccotti Park in Manhattan. They said they are concerned about the influence of corporations and wealthy people on politics and economic stress on the middle class.
(AP Photo/Eileen Connelly)
Recent polls show growing numbers of Americans have lost confidence in government. Occupy Wall Street protestors say they are against corporate greed and economic disparity, and their movement is rapidly spreading. In a letter to the protestors, Harvard law professor Lawrence Lessig urges them to unite Democrats, Republicans and Independants against what he sees as the root problem: a political system where only 1 percent of americans fund 99 percent of campaigns. He offers a plan to stop the corrupting influence of money on government, including the possibility of a constitutional convention.

Guests

Lawrence Lessig 
professor of law at Harvard Law School and director of the Edmond J. Safra Center for Ethics at Harvard University.

Read an Excerpt

Excerpt from Lawrence Lessig's "Republic, Lost: How Money Corrupts Congress - and a Plan to Stop It." All rights reserved. Copyright 2011 by Lawrence Lessig. Reprinted here by permission of Twelve/Hachette Book Group:

Comments

Please familiarize yourself with our Code of Conduct and Terms of Use before posting your comments.

Public financing is seen by many as a remedy to the "corrupting" influence of private money in politics. The alternative of having government pick winners and losers in my opinion is a cure worse than the disease.
It is just not possible to know who the best candidates are at any given time, someone will have to decide who gets financed and who doesn't. Government as a whole cannot tie it's own shoe laces, I certainly don't want it to pick who I can vote for.
October 18, 2011 - 8:51 am

Government doesn't pick anyone....
We don't have a Government now, we have Wall Street manipulating the political process and picking who they want to have in office. Your next president will be Mitt Romney the Koch Brothers have already decided that.
If you believe that Government is your problem, you haven't been paying attention since Eisenhower was in office. If Government is a failure, it is simply because those who are in charge want you to believe that Government can only fail.
Once they have convinced you of that, once you truly believe that the only solution is the one that is picked for you....then you are more willing to let them have their way. They just throw you red meat once in a while to keep you riled up and involved, they chose Romney right after they decided that Obama was of no further use to them.
October 18, 2011 - 9:12 am

You may truely be mentaly ill, wallstreet is run by PEOPLE, and corporations are owned by and employ PEOPLE. You claim you want the PEOPLE to make decisions, but what you really want is for the right people to make the decisions for you. I for one would much rather have the successful people in our country have a louder voice. The last thing we need to succeed as a nation is to have the lowest common denominator of society speak the loudest. They have proven their value to the greater good by what, voting for and taking advantage of social welfare. So your basic plan is...
1. Create and/or sustain welfare programs
2. Give money away to the majority of people
3. Have them continue to vote for you by expanding the programs and the number of people reached
4. Completely disincentivize the general populus to work
5. Self destruct as a nation.
Hardwork breeds success, as a nation we should encourage success, not welfare.
October 18, 2011 - 9:38 am

Another issue with public financing, why would the 49% that actually pay taxes want their tax dollars to support a candidate that wants to expand welfare so more of their earned(defined as going to work and being paid for it, sorry entitlement programs you don't count) income can be handed out to those unwilling to do what is required to be an active member of society. If you don't pay taxes you don't get to decide which candidates get the money. So the democrats can just pack up and go to Cuba, they claim to be socialists that should work out well for them.
October 18, 2011 - 9:45 am

“You may truly be mentally ill” Spoken like a true advocate of Ayn Rand…
Wall street is run by corporations and corporations are not people! Though Mitt thinks so.
So what kind of President will Romney be?
We already know…
1). A continuation of the Bush/Obama administrations.
2). The economic policies of the next administration will be geared to serve the wealthy and corporations
3). A downsizing of all social programs (if you aren’t successful, then die….).
4). Further assault on Social Security and Medicare (when are you gonna take care of yourself loser….)
5). Pandering to the Pentagon (helps with the dying and killing stuff, see above point 3)
6). Deeper attrition of civil liberties. (making it easier to do away with critical groups)
7). Unrelenting if foredoomed attempt to maintain American dominance in the world at all cost.
October 18, 2011 - 9:58 am

Corpations are run by people, employ people and ultimately their profits go to people. I agree that corporations in and of themselves are not people. But they do employ and are owned and run by them. Or do you think it's robots, and artificial intelligence.
October 18, 2011 - 10:13 am

Lets be honest shall we, there are poor people there will always be poor people, you could take all the money and distribute it evenly and in a couple of days there will be people complaining that they wasted their share, and in a couple of years there will be a disinct division of wealth. Some people exercise selfcontrol and don't buy more than they can afford and others that see money in their pockets and spend it as quickly as possible. Why should the persons that save and spend wisely have to support those that throw it away as soon as they get it. And don't claim I'm talking about people "throwing money away" by spending it on food and shelter unless they bought a house many times greater than they could afford. Nor am I speaking about persons with legitimate mental illness. I am talking about the working poor that choose to live on credit cards so they can have that new ipad, when they don't have the fiscal health to buy it. Or the ones that buy a car because it is cool even though they can't realistically afford it. We are tired of the free ride for those that squander what they have instead of investing in their future and themselves. I work hard for myself and my family, not for yours.
October 18, 2011 - 10:34 am

As a former federal firefighter of the U.S. Forest Service, I was forbidden from taking ANYTHING from the public. Even if a fire had raged through a community three days prior, and a little old lady had baked chocolate chip cookies to thank my crew, we were not allowed to take them due to fears of conflict of interest. How can the same government body who made this rule be allowed to take money from whomever is willing to give at whatever amount?
I would like the guest to comment on how or even if term limits were imposed on Congress, would that help? It seems like the longer the politicians are in office, the dirtier and more out-of-touch they become.
October 18, 2011 - 10:41 am

Mnemecek,
I probably agree with you more than you might think that I do. What I disagree with is the simple attitude that working hard and taking care of yourself is the end of the discussion. Holding that kind of attitude makes you far more suceptible to the manipulators. You say that you work hard, I may make a leap here and posit that you probably aren't wealthy by any stretch of the imagination. Wealthy people aren't on this board....wealthy people don't care to discuss this stuff, they aren't interested.
I don't think that anyone truly advocates for a wellfare state, no more than they would advocate for a condition where selfish people take everything. We need to be more than our black and white, left and right ideologies.
We need to face the fact that we truly are a nation in decline and Ayn Rand and a defense of selfishness is not a solution. Indeed people need to take responsibility for themselves but we need to stop being divided by the folks that like to yank our chains. At present all politicians/political parties are the enemy because their job is divide us and keep us from figuring out who the real enemy is. We need to start thinking.
October 18, 2011 - 10:46 am

Lawrence is on point. Thanks for inviting him, (and with all due respect, for not inviting the radical partisan hacks to muddy the conversation)
The Diane Rehm show should run 24/7 on network cable.
October 18, 2011 - 11:38 am

Funding the run for office is only part of the problem. We must also deal with the ongoing problem of CONSULTING FEES, SPEAKING FEES, and PAY OFFS VIA FAMILY MEMBER EMPLOYMENT.
Washington and Jefferson both wrote about the potential for future corruption of the government by the forces of big city (big money) forces, concluding it could destroy the nation.
October 18, 2011 - 11:31 am

When did we lose the "service" concept of public service? Can you imagine any other job where the applicant (the candidate) tells the employer (us) that he'd like the job but it will take millions of dollars to interview him/her?
Consider what would happen if there wasn't another snarky political campaign add (that costs millions to produce and air) on television ever again. Perhaps it would force candidates to quit the hollywood drama and voice their positions on issues that matter to citizens.
October 18, 2011 - 11:29 am

When did we lose the "service" concept of public service? Can you imagine any other job where the applicant (the candidate) tells the employer (us) that he'd like the job but it will take millions of dollars to interview him/her?
Consider what would happen if there wasn't another snarky political campaign add (that costs millions to produce and air) on television ever again. Perhaps it would force candidates to quit the hollywood drama and voice their positions on issues that matter to citizens.
October 18, 2011 - 11:30 am

I have never heard a bigger fool on your show. Never.
The idea that anybody on the right would join him is just crazy. Yes, they will give him a BIG thumbs up for all his Obama bashing and efforts to encourage folks to give up on the 2012 election, but they will NEVER support anything he says no matter how much he bends over to please them.
Control of our politics by the 1% is a feature of the modern conservative movement. It is not a bug.
Creating a complicated plan rooted in poor thinking is a waste of everybody's time.
The more Mr. Lessig talks the more dishonest and foolish he sounds.
October 18, 2011 - 11:31 am

Lessig is radically meek. If I were the Koches invisibly funding the Wrath of Cain I'd be thrilled. Liberalism is the ideology that succeeded the sovereignty of Kings and ushered us into a nightmare of usury. Liberalism is merchantilism among the rich with profit paramount. The apologists for this system in modern times have been called Liberals. Conservatives traditionally countered with the tried and true: backward methods and values. So that is why we have two pro-corporate parties today.
Lessig parrots the three upper middleclass incremental myths:
Campaign finance reform will restore democracy.
Single payer will restore health.
Education (increased human capital) will fix the economy.
(There are also ill-defined myths surrounding energy and environment.)
Incremental fixes do not work on fatal systemic problems.
Global crony corporate capitalism is a private tyranny and a lethal problem.
Until we take a radical tack to devolve corporations and cap wealth and income nothing suggested will work. That is why Lessig is a radically meek apologist. Professor Lessig, the Oligarchs do not need you to defend them anymore. You are now superfluous. Your book is a fairy tale.
October 18, 2011 - 11:31 am

Mr. Lessig mentioned that Herman Cain's plan would clean up a lot of problems in DC. Unfortunately Mr. Cain's plan is so fundamentally flawed that it isn't even worth discussion. Under his plan, businesses get no tax deduction for wages. Large consulting firms like Hewlett-Packard and IBM, and large Wall Street law firms would see their effective tax rates exceed 100% of their profits. End of story.
October 18, 2011 - 11:32 am

How refreshing to hear these issues clearly stated. We are at the brink of change and I feel as a country just starting to wake up and take responsibility. Right On!
October 18, 2011 - 11:36 am

I wish the OWS movement would firm up its core message by using the image of the octopus of many tentacles, or the tree of many branches.
The movement's postured critics keep wanting to distract us back onto unsnarling the tentacles instead of killing the octopus; or hacking at the branches instead of uprooting the tree.
What is the octopus, or the tree? Just as Prof. Lessig says: BIG MONEY CORRUPTION, and its establishment of the Plutocracy that has crushed our Democracy.
The critics challenge us to make specific demands, to propose the programs and legislation to fix specific problems.
NO! That's our elected representatives' job, and our core demand is that you our elected representatives do your first job: KILL THE OCTOPUS that you have bred and fed!
October 18, 2011 - 11:37 am

Yes. This is the issue that underlies so many of our political problems. Thank you for giving Lawrence Lessig a chance to air his ideas.
As far as public funding goes, there are many schemes that would work to support democracy. For example, every voter could be given vouchers to support candidates of their choice. Candidates would then accumulate these vouchers and use them to obtain public funds.
Thanks again for a great show.
October 18, 2011 - 11:38 am

Corporations are *not* people. Period. Just as we have a separation of Church and State we need a separation of Corporations and State. Corporate Money out of government and governance. All of it. No corporate funds. Eliminate PACs and Super PACs. Fund our electoral process from public funds and limited contributions from *individual* real, live humans. Sooner the better.
Regards,
bill halstead, cincinnati, ohio
October 18, 2011 - 11:46 am

These days, saying "there will always be poor people" is like saying "we gotta keep some of them poor people around to be my victims, and the more the better."
In 19th century England 90 to 95% of people worked hard but lived no better than livestock. That is the natural state of unregulated capitalism. Crying over the welcome end of corporate capitalism because you haven't yet won big is like attacking the phonograph operator at a cakewalk because you paid a dollar and got no cake. Your small-potatoes attitude is killing our entire species.
It is frightening to me that someone can type on a computer and copy talking points but cannot conceive of the reality of structural injustice and corporate violence.
October 18, 2011 - 11:45 am

instead of corporations or individuals giving to particular candidates, all contributions go to the party. The party then divides the money equally to each qualified candidate for a particular race putting everyone on a even playing field. Incumbents have a tendency to always buy their way back into office over a underfunded challenger but if both have the same amount of money to work with then it levels the field more. this would stop a lot of the elected officals from spending so much time raising funds and make them concentrate on their job more. This would also let the people know who can manage money better which is what we need.
Then for general elections between the parties, again each candidate gets the exact same amount of money so we the people can see who is better at management and handling money and someone can't buy their way into office. This would also eleminate a lot of lobbyist from buying votes.
Michael Benton
October 18, 2011 - 11:49 am

Here's my solution for solving the financing problem. Require that renewal of an FCC license to operate is contingent on providing free ad time during an election cycle for ALL candidates, e.g you are on the ballot you qualify. Removes the need for millions for TV and radio ads
October 18, 2011 - 11:52 am

michael benton: I am wiggling my fingers vigorously and they are pointing downward. Why are you so fixated on Parties when they are a device for repressive social control? Your limited understanding is a hoot but you better educate yourself if you want to participate. I know you mean well, so get outside the habitrail.
October 18, 2011 - 12:08 pm

Long time listener, first time commenter:
Diane,
Can I please just say thank you.
You have had several programs that have enlightened and informed me. Some days I am more interested, some days less.
Today alone your guest and his message has justified every hour I have ever spent listening to your program. This is the only (hopefully just the first) place I have heard what I feel is exactly the right kind of message for the people of our nation.
Thank you.
October 18, 2011 - 11:56 am

Wow! Kudo's Diane. We can "tweak" the details, but Mr. Lessig's diagnosis and general prescription may be the smartest public policy idea I've heard in years. His passion (that of a jilted lover) makes good radio, too.
October 18, 2011 - 11:57 am

Great reply to "mnemneck"! Lawrence Lessig, you are my new hero -- and clearly NOT mentally ill!
October 18, 2011 - 12:00 pm

If we could get the Contitution Reform that you suggested, then America could hope again, and getting the President to be on the same page would bring about such a political change and a glimmer of hope for the Country and our Children.
October 18, 2011 - 12:00 pm

There's a corporate sellout on every street corner ready to replace Obama if he missteps from the Oligarch path. And he's too deep in the swamp for the People to save him. Romney and Obama are pretty much the same thing.
If the voters are stupid enough to trade the possibility of democracy for a pizza
maybe humanity should go extinct.
October 18, 2011 - 12:01 pm

Dr. Lessig, Obama seems too entranced in the system to every truly change it. And, yet, the majority of the population is disgusted with our government as it's currently functioning. And, Obama's base will still vote for him as he's a much better choice than any of his oponents, unless we do have someone who truly speaks to the people's hearts.
That, plus it's easier to change something from within, so I'm wondering if you would consider running as an alternative, third party, canidate? You would certainly get my vote and probably 90 some percent of the OCW group as well as a large percentage of the Republicans who are also fed up with corruption within our governemt.
October 18, 2011 - 12:01 pm

No comments:

Post a Comment