You should run, but not just because you have a Change Congress initiative, instead because this district deserves a debate about our government’s role in our lives and America’s role in the world. Without a race there will be no debate, no discussion, nothing, just a passing of the mantle to next in line, like in a dictatorship.

I met Jackie Speier one time. No offense, but she is not the right person to walk in the footsteps of Tom Lantos. That would be a step backwards in the strength of Congress.

JDM

I take issue when you make this statement: “Let politics for once be a battle about something other than “character.” Let it be a battle about ideas, and which ideas matter.” (which every one should rally too of course) and you make a video like this one.

In this video, Prof. Lessig, you have censored the legitimate debate that should happen between candidates. You not only recommended strongly using “character” and “judgment” over ideas and facts. You also recommended to “trust you” based on your knowledge of “technology policies” (that’s it?). You recommended to follow the NY times who said… [whatever]. Are you just a politician? who can say face up anything and its opposite within days?

What is worse, Prof. Lessig, is that you are hi-jacking new technologies to create a “flash democracy”. Never in history have we had tools such as the Web and collaborative Web 2.0 tools to bring “we, the people’ and the people we elect together. Do you think that keywords and animation should prevail about ideas and discussions? You are inovating by creating a new movement: “popularism” even worse than “populism”.

Don’t you think that by hi-jacking these tools you are right off the bat killing the best -and only- thing that could impact lobbying? don’t you think that Web 2.0 is cheap? don’t you think that politicians would not need millions of dollars to be elected or reelected if we would level the field on the Web? i.e. if the Web was used, not as a propaganda media, but as a tool to make ideas and issue surface the mud?

I am very discouraged by your discourse, it simply does not fit your achievements or the ideas (and ideal) that you say you represent. It creates a precedent: the Web is a tool that brings people together not a debilitating media. Which side are you on?

Sincerely yours,

Jean-Jacques Dubray

I actually live in the 12th congressional district and I don’t want to be represented by someone who wants to get elected only to promulgate his “agenda” (no matter how well intentioned) but I want to be represented by someone who will listen to, respond and take leadership on a myriad of community concerns.

I see many comments above from folks who support your “agenda,” but few from residents of the 12th congressional district. If the facts were made available, I’ll bet that 99% of your campaign contributions come from people outside the district. I’m not happy about the concept of people outside my district buying a seat in Congress so that their “agenda” can be advanced (is this much different – ethically – from PACs “buying” influence?).

If I’m wrong and you have strong support and contributions from inside the 12th CD, please prove me wrong by publishing the data (the ActBlue website states that detailed donor info is available to the candidate). Transparency?

Two points:

1. Corporate money is not bad. But — more transparency is needed. I disagree with removing bias from politics, I think it is a necessity. Let the voter’s vote for the person who their employer has paid for if it will let them keep their job. The trouble comes with lack of transparency. Fix that.

2. Legislating is a tough way to change behavior. The Executive branch can torpedo all good legislative intentions by agency back-room dealings. Agencies are where most of the lobbyists live and work. I won’t even get started about judicial review of Agency determinations.

3. OK, three points, but this one covers the other two: transparency, transparency, transparency. If you have credible, transparent, legitimate judicial, legislative and executive, then the world’s businesses will come here — rather than staying in their home country where they cook the books (see, e.g., India), execute agency heads who are corrupt (see, e.g., China) and have state take overs to prevent private parties from getting too powerful (see, e.g., Russia).

Prof – I’m biased toward you running for office, maybe just for sport — it sort of reminds me of professional wrestling, where there are two wrestlers in the ring, and the third one comes in and grabs the hair of the other two and smacks their heads together.

What a show — good luck!

I agree with Marilyn. If this would be a candidacy about the mis-use of money in politics (haven’t watched the video, but that’s what I gather from reading this entry), why spend so much money on a fight that will, in the end, be about a choice between two very similar candidates for 1 vote out of 435. To me it seems like something of a waste when there are so many serious problems and not enough money to fix them.

I’d also like to see more women in Congress, not fewer, and it’s hard enough to get them there – and to convince folks that they’ve done enough, that they’re experienced enough and competent enough. Jackie could win and she’d do a great job, and maybe someday she could move up to higher office where women are so seriously underrepresented — we need more women like Jackie in the pipeline.

I’m also not sure I agree with the premise that all PAC money is the same. Corporations are motivated exclusively by profit — and often, to me, seem to be motivated most by profit for a few execs. But something like a union PAC is different. It is essentially a giant aggregator of small donations from middle-class and lower-middle-class working people through an organization whose elected leadership is accountable to those people in regular local and national elections in a process that seems to me much more effective than shareholder control over corporate execs (especially in light of recent opinions that pension directors who advocate for socially responsible sh resolutions may be violating their fiduciary duties). I also think that at least in the case of Dems (the folks I care about) donations from corporate PACs are more likely to encourage a Dem to take a policy position s/he might not otherwise have taken if left to his/her own progressive whims, while a progressive Dem would probably support most (if not all) union initiatives to benefit working people even if s/he didn’t also receive union money.

I haven’t thought these issues through well enough to have a fully formed opinion, but I think I would probably be in favor of significant legislative reform of the electoral process that would affect both parties and go far toward taking the money out of politics on both sides. But as long as the current system remains in effect, what I care about most is getting progressive Dems in office so that they can change things for the better. And I’m not convinced that urging Dems to give up lobbyist / PAC money unilaterally is the right way to go, or that all PAC money is equal.

While I don’t doubt you could raise enough money to create name ID and make a credible run, I’m guessing (now this is a total guess here) that 95% of the funds raised so far come from outside the district.

If this is substantially true… accepting a significant amount of campaign funding from outside the district would create the impression that outsiders are attempting to run the congressional district not unlike PACs running Congress – and that in and of itself would become an enormous campaign issue.

At the very least, having you post the contributor zip code data now will help by having you bring the issue forward on your own rather than have your opponent lock onto it as her issue. I look forward to your campaign transparency by seeing the data posted.

Jackie Speier not only has progressive ideas, but the experience and perseverance to see these ideas through to success. As State Senator for my district, I watched her introduce Privacy Legislation for FOUR YEARS in a row — fighting the banking, insurance and credit card industries all the way — until she finally had the best consumer Privacy protections in the nation. Please don’t give up your fight, Larry, but please use your talents where we most need them – Change-Congress.org.