Proposed 28th Amendment beta v.9

I hear that Publius submitted this to Dylan Ratigan’s Great 28 Debate: (slight but important edits inspired by fantastic feedback from souls from #occupyDC) : 12/15/11) (for version history, see the protected version of this at the lessig-wiki).

  1. For the purpose of securing the independence of the legislative and executive branches, Congress shall: 
      (1) fund federal elections publicly, at no less than the equivalent of the total amount spent in the election cycle when this article is ratified; 
      (2) limit any non-anonymized contributions to candidates for federal office to the equivalent of $100;
      (3) have the power to limit, but not to ban, independent political expenditures within 90 days of an election, including, but not limited to, expenditures in support of, or in opposition to, a candidate for federal office.
  2. The First Amendment shall not be construed to limit legislation enacted pursuant to this article, save to assure content and viewpoint neutrality. Neither shall the First Amendment be construed to limit the equivalent power of state or local legislation enacted to regulate elections of state or local officers. Nor shall the First Amendment be construed to vest in any non-natural person any unalienable constitutional rights. 
  3. Congress shall by law establish an agency for federal elections which shall enforce the provisions of this article, and whose principal officers shall be non-partisan commissioners who have served at least 10 years as a federal judge. The agency shall have standing to enforce the provisions of this article judicially in the federal courts, and the judicial power shall be construed to extend to actions by the agency against Congress.
  4. The Congress shall have power to enforce, by appropriate legislation, the provisions of this article.

Thoughts?

Posted in regular | Leave a comment

Hey App Stores, why isn't this obvious?

I’ve got three kids — two boys (8 and 5), and a girl (2). We regulate their access to technology (not sure why, or how best, but we try). And we want to find excellent Apps (in both Chrome and for iPad/Pods), appropriate to their ages. 

So why isn’t it easy to filter based on age? It isn’t helpful to be told that there are tens of thousands of “education” apps. Why can’t I see those appropriate for a 5 year old? Or 8 year old? Then maybe sorted by ratings? 

This seems so obvious I’m sure I’m missing something, but seriously: Why isn’t this easier? 

Posted in regular | Leave a comment

Dear Candidate for Congress …

Thanks for your call, which I am sorry I was not able to accept. But after many too many contributions to candidates for Congress, I have adopted an absolute rule: 

I will not consider making a contribution to your campaign for Congress unless you commit absolutely and prominently to support reforms to end the corrupting influence of money in Congress.

“Absolutely and prominently” means this is the thrust of your campaign: One of the first things you mention, the issue you come back to again and again, and the issue you use to explain every other issue. Buddy Roemer is the best example of this. If you’re Roemer-like, then I will consider contributing to your campaign. 

That is a necessary condition. It isn’t sufficient. I don’t have a great deal of personal wealth. But if you can certify you qualify as a #rootstriker, I am happy to consider contributing, whether you’re a Republican or Democrat, and happy to share that fact with others. 

Good luck with the campaign. The institution you seek to serve within was the crown jewel of our Framers. It has since been badly tarnished. I hope you can commit to restoring it. 

Posted in regular | 1 Comment

Is there such a thing as a portable database?

I’m looking for an app that will take a bunch of files (ideally, html), index them, and then produce a cross-platform stand-alone database app, so I could distribute all the files and the app on a thumb drive, and someone could use it to search on the files. (And don’t ask why. It’s TOP SECRET.)

Is there such a thing? Kind of redundant with OS functionality, I realize, but the HTML is well ordered so ideally there would be fields here. 

Thanks in advance. 


Posted in regular | 1 Comment

Signed books anyone?

So I’ve gotten a bunch of requests from people for signed copies of my books. (Seriously, like at least 14 million so far  and counting). At first it seemed like a cumbersome thing to arrange, but we’ve figured out a relatively simple way to do this. 

Here it is: If you’d like a signed copy of any of my books (but I’m hoping, especially, my new book, Republic, Lost: How Money Corrupts Congress and a Plan to Stop It (Twelve, 2011)), then: 

  1. Locate the Amazon price.
  2. Add $3.50 for postage (US, for one book; if you need foreign or more, email first and we’ll calculate it)
  3. Paypal (commerce(at)lessig(dot)org) me that amount, with (a) an address you want it shipped to and (b) the inscription you want.
  4. And smile, knowing your book is (sort of quickly) on its way!
Posted in regular | Leave a comment

Americans Elect

The world is underestimating the potential potential of Americans Elect. This project is building a virtual delegate base that will then select a presidential candidate who, I bet, will (because of the extraordinary work of the organization) be on every single state ballot.

There is real potential here. They are beginning to surface reform issues better — not perfectly, but better. And this could become an important vehicle for focusing the reform issue — if, at least, the delegates so agree. 

So who are the delegates? Rootstrikers, got some extra clicks? 

Posted in regular | Leave a comment

This was a very fun interview with Brian Lamb on C-Span. 

Posted in video | Tagged , | Leave a comment

Me, MIA?: On the SOPA soap opera

So it’s flattering to be missed, @JeffRoberts. Thank you for that. You’re right, I am not at the center of the SOPA fight (though obviously a strong supporter). Here’s a couple sentences why. 

First, and again, this is a critical battle to wage and win. SOPA is just the latest, but in  many ways, the most absurd campaign in the endless saga of America’s copyright wars. It will be yet another failed attempt in a failed war, and I obviously believe it should be opposed. 

But second, and as you describe, this isn’t my war anymore. Not because my heart isn’t in it, but because I don’t believe we will win that war (or better, win the peace and move on) — even if we can win battles like this one — until the more basic corruption that is our government gets addressed. That’s the fight I have spent the last 4 years working on. That’s where I’ll be for at least the next 6. 

Third, my going missing here is not something to miss. There is a world of fantastic and powerful new advocates here — my favorites include Fight for the Future and Demand Progress, and the just launched today, StopCensorship.org — and there remains the incredible gaggle of more traditional heros, including EFF and Public Knowledge. More importantly, there are crucial statesmen (and women) who are the rightful leaders on this fight — email Senator Wyden and Congresswoman Lofgren and thank them, please. If I have anything to contribute to these fights, I have contributed it again and again in writing and lectures. My lectures in this space are CC licensed (RSS); my books in this space are CC licensed (Remix, Free Culture, The Future of Ideas, Codev2, Code and Other Laws of Cyberspace). When your own writing gets called “derivative“ of your own writing, it is time to move on.  

But fourth: I don’t think it’s fair to call the current project “quixotic and at worst as a Nader-like vanity project.” I’m not running for anything, and I’m not alone in this fight. There is an extraordinary range of powerful souls fighting now for this essential change — from Cenk Ugur’s WolfPAC, to Dylan Ratigan & Jimmy Williams’ GetMoneyOut, to the just launched United Re:Public, to the longstanding work of Americans for Campaign Reform, Public Campaign, Public Citizen and Common Cause. We are all working for the same fundamental change, as we are all convinced that until we achieve that change, this democracy will not work.

Of course, as my book, Republic, Lost: How Money Corrupts Congress and a Plan to Stop It (Twelve 2011), describes, this is an insanely difficult, possibly impossible, fight. But whether difficult or not, it is the fight that must be waged.  

For this is what I know: We will never (as in not ever) win the war you care about until we win the war against this corruption of our Republic.

There is only one sacred text in this war: For every thousand hacking at the branches of evil, there is one striking at the root. So, please, Jeff: rally many many souls to those thousands. But please set aside at least some cycles to be one with that one as well.

Rootstrikers. (Republic, Lost: The preso)

Posted in regular | 1 Comment

Ok, so f*ck it. I'm back.

Twenty-seven months ago, I announced the hibernation of my blog. It is with deep deep embarrassment that I confess that for about the last 24 of those 27 months, I have been trying to find a way back. The latest of these efforts has again failed, but I am not going to wait any more. I want a blog again. Someday I may get it back in a form and style that I like. Meanwhile, I will use the magic here at tumblr, and see if I can recruit the help I need to make it something more. 

As I described 27 months ago, a big chunk of the reason I had to fold was the coming of the third child. She has been amazing beyond belief, and her demands on my life have only grown. But a separate cause was the extraordinary burden of protecting the blog from the malcrap that is too much of the Net. Because my site was relatively popular, it was the target of all sort of junk. Hidden in my archive was an endless supply of gambling junk. So bad was it that at one point, Google kicked me off the index. I needed real expertise to manage and protect the site. But all I had was a collection of extremely decent sweet soul-ed volunteers, who could not keep up. 

I had to depend upon volunteers because (a) I am not a corporation, and (b) I don’t have lots of money. But after that failure, I decided I would try to recruit professional web sorts who might be able to do a redesign, and relaunch the site with the right sort of 24/7 protection. Suffice it that this hasn’t worked. I have spent thousands of my own money, endless hours of frustration and failure, and still have no ability to launch a dev.lessig.org with the infrastructure and protection it needs. 

All this is because of an inherent conflict in the emerging reality of the web: Because of the miscreants who make up too much of the web, the free speech enabled the web is costly. Sites need real administrators. Administrators have to eat. Eating costs money. 

Many deal with this reality by serving ads to defray costs. But I never wanted to be in a space where I needed to (or did) worry about whether my words were earning the right number of click throughs. So I have never permitted ads to be a part of my site. But that decision left me in this awkward position where I (a) could not afford to hire 24/7 support, and (b) I had to rely upon good souls as volunteers.

There are, of course, alternatives. I have been writing a lot at Huffington Post largely because it gives me everything I want for writing that is properly, or appropriately, public: It is free, it has amazing web support, I get to write whatever I want, they don’t even give me a way to know how many people read what I write, and so I get the freedom I need at the price I can afford. 

But Huffington Post is not a personal blog. And that’s what I want. There are things I want to be able to write that are not appropriately there, and that take more than 140 characters to say. And that’s what this space will be. 

So, if you’re interested, stay tuned. 

And if you’re a webmaster soul, who might be able to help achieve what I have been unable to do for 24 months, please email me at lessig at pobox dot com. I’ll send you the spec of what I need/want, and you can give me a budget and some confidence you can help. 

Thanks to everyone who has encouraged this return. Just don’t tell my 2 year old daughter, and we should be fine. 

Posted in regular | Leave a comment

One More Try: The Rules Versus the Game

[Dave Zirin has replied to my response. This issue about strategy is critical and important. Let me try one more time.]

Still missing the point. Let me try, Mr. @EdgeofSports, one last time. This time with a sports metaphor:

Imagine you’re a player with the Chicago Bears. You’re on the field, about to begin a game with the Green Bay Packers. Just before kick-off, someone races onto the field screaming: “Guys, please, can’t we all just get along? Enough of this fighting. Let’s just shake hands and go get a beer.”

I am not that guy, Dave. That’s not my argument (now stated again and again and again). Instead, I’m the guy saying something like: “Hey, Bears and Packers: Can we have a conversation about whether a tackler should be allowed to use his helmet when making a tackle?” Or translated for the non-sports-readers (which, before my friend Mark Snyderman gave me these examples, I, too, would have been), I’m the guy saying: we need to have a conversation about the rules of the game, because they are not working for any of us.

Or once again: Imagine you’re the pitcher for the Boston Red Sox (as most of the kids (boys and girls) where I come from do, at least once a day). You’re on the pitching mound, about to throw against the Yankees’ star batter. You look up, and some guy is flying a plane pulling a banner that says: “Look, I know some of us are Sox fans, and others of us are Yankees fans, but we’re all baseball fans. Let’s just stop all this fighting, link arms, and learn to work together.”

I am not that idiot either, Dave. Instead, and again, I am your teammate (no doubt, I’d be in the dugout and you’d be pitching, but still), asking whether it might make sense to sit down with the Yankees (and others in our league) and rethink the instant replay rule. Baseball, I believe, should be governed by honest umpires, not HD cameras.

In both cases, I’m the guy saying we should think about the rules. I’m not trying to say we should dampen the competitive passion of our own team. Or deny the justice in our own cause. Or to betray our own objectives. But competition happens on a field; that field is governed by rules; those rules only get changed if everyone (or at least the 99%) on the field agrees. So I think we need to find a way to talk to the 99% — Liberals, Conservatives, Moderates, Libertarians — about whether and how those rules should be changed.

Now as crazy as it is to race onto a football field and urge a kumbayah moment, or to buzz Fenway Park to urge inter-team love, it is just as crazy to label as disloyal a team member who is arguing that we need to sit down to talk about the rules of the game. It may be disloyal to argue that you shouldn’t fight hard against the other team. It is likely stupid, as a coach, to start a game with a lecture about how decent and hard working the other side is. But it is neither stupid nor disloyal to push for a respectful conversation with the other side when you believe the rules of the game are not working — for you and for the other side.

And that is my belief. I believe this system is corrupt. I believe that corruption hurts both the (populist) Left and the (populist) Right. And because I believe it hurts both of us populists, I believe there is a reason to try to engage with people I otherwise disagree with to see whether we can, first, agree about this corruption, and second, take steps to reform it. I believe that 99% of us — Liberal and Conservative, Leftist and Libertarians, Moderates, Tea Party supporters, Coffee Party Activists, much of the ACLU — could actually agree about the corruption that is this system, and agree to work together to change it.

It won’t be easy to get that agreement. It isn’t obvious how to even facilitate the conversation. But a good first step in that project would be to resolve not to call (again, baselessly, but put that aside) the other side “racists.” Instead, that conversation begins by acknowledging our differences, and accepting our different loyalties, yet working with respect to engage people we disagree with about the possibility that there might be something more fundamental — like changing the rules of the game — that differences notwithstanding, we might agree upon.

I get that respect is not your style. I doubt our politics are much different, but I do lean more to Gandhi (“What makes you think I hate the British?“) than to Malcolm X. But you rally hate not only of your opponents, but also of your allies, with prose that reek of condescension (“put down the high school citizenship textbook”), attack with falseness (“Please don’t tell me to love the Tea Party” — where have I ever told anyone to support, let alone, love the Tea Party?) and repeatedly demand that I just go home (“please get out of the way”; “don’t be surprised if theres no US. Just ‘you.'”). I get that makes things simpler — the Tea Party is racist, and I’m ignorant — but in my experience, I’ve not actually seen that style do much to convince anyone of anything.

At the very least, you’ve not shown me how hate gets you to 67 Senators, or 75% of the States. Dr. King didn’t need to change the Constitution. We do. And nothing in what I’ve said suggests anyone should “wait” to fight for anything of substance: please, coach, rally the team to fight for all the things you and I believe in. What I’ve said, again and again and again, is that as well as fighting for what we believe, we need to identify what we all believe, and use that common belief to end the corruption that blocks us, and them, from getting what we, all of us, want.

Posted in HuffPo | 20 Comments