Please welcome lessig.org back from its slumber

When my third kid was born, lessig.org went into hibernation. The new stuff at home plus the burden of battling spamalots online made it impossible to continue.
But after kind prodding and lots of very kind help, lessig.org wakes from its slumber. I am endlessly grateful to Joseph Mornin, who has architected the revival, successfully porting the old into a more manageable platform.
For now, this place will gather stuff published elsewhere first. I will continue to feed my Tumblr blog, because I am still intrigued to understand that community. Posts on HuffingtonPost get automatically ported over. We need to tinker a bit to get the Atlantic stuff carried over.
But meanwhile, welcome back. And if you’re so excited you just can’t stand it, then feel free to give generously to the two entities I care most about: Rootstrikers and Creative Commons.
 

Posted in Good news, News, Read This | 640 Comments

hey, so I don't write headlines

I’m an eager “author” at The Atlantic, happy to blog whenever I can about the issues that matter most to me. But The Atlantic is a proper publication, which means it exercises editorial control, which always means AT LEAST that they get to pick the title.

I’m 99% of the time fine with that, but sometimes, the title creates an impression different from what I mean. And so it the case with the latest “Why a Democratic Tea Party Is the Best Hope for Fixing Corrupt Government.”

To someone who just read the title, you might think the piece was an argument for a partisan-based movement in favor of reform. And if you have read what I’ve written before, you would be surprised by that (as I work INCREDIBLY HARD to push the idea of a cross-partisan movement for reform). 

But if you read the whole piece, you’ll see that the title gets drawn from this paragraph:

Democrats have a real chance here. While no one doubts that the corruption of this current system is symmetrical — Democrats are just as dependent as Republicans on funding from the tiniest slice of the 1 percent — the reform movement is not symmetrical. The GOP has become the anti-reform party (unless by “reform” you mean increasing the corruption of a system in which the tiniest slice of the 1 percent fund America’s campaigns). Only Democrats are talking about ideas that might actually end that corruption.

It is time for Democrats finally to steal a move from the Republican’s playbook: Boldness inspires. If there’s going to be a Tea Party for Reform, Democrats must start talking about ideas that give people a real reason to get excited.

This isn’t, and wasn’t meant to be, a suggestion that the reform movement should be Democratic. It shouldn’t. The point instead is simply that only the Democrats have begun to take up this corruption — a corruption, again, that afflicts both sides. 

(Original post on Tumblr)

Posted in Tumblr | 3 Comments

An "unusually partisan" truth we need the courage to tell

@jxchristopher writes of my latest piece in The Atlantic

jxchristopher: Unusually partisan for you, Professor @Lessig – you’re much more persuasive when striking at roots rather than branches http://t.co/R856ldSV

It is true, the piece is, and it was difficult to write because it is. It is my style, and for good purpose, to keep it clear that the problem that I am describing — the problem of the corrupting influence of campaign cash — is completely bi-partisan. I work hard to make that point as clear as I can (and am most proud when people see that).

But I was struck when I read Thomas Mann & Norm Ornstein’s book, It’s Even Worse Than It Looks, with both (1) how convincing they are about partisan problem that they are describing, and (2) how difficult it is to take their position. 

Their point is that the Republicans are now different. Echoing others (see, e.g., Michael Grunwald’s The New New Deal), Mann and Ornstein argue that the behavior of the Republicans is unprecedented in modern history, and that that behavior is unambiguously harmful to our type of democracy. A parliamentary democracy can afford a militant minority, since the majority can still govern. But a constitutional democracy with the kind of separation of powers that we have cannot survive a militant minority, since the consequence of that permanent war is perpetual stalemate. The “ideals” that Newt Gingrich introduced to Congress destroyed Congress and thus also our ability to govern. And while there are people who don’t mind if government can’t do anything, they are not people with any connection to reality. 

Only the Republicans have been militant minority-ists. The Democrats, in minority during the Bush years, never adopted a “we will not give you one vote” rule. But that was precisely the rule McConnell and the house leadership insisted upon when Obama became President. We have suffered from that militant behavior since, and it continues even after this election. (HuffPo: Boehner to GOP: Fall in Line)

Yet it is hard to remark this — especially hard for people like Ornstein and Mann, who depend upon access to Congress for their work. Indeed, these two intellectual deans of congressional studies have been meticulously a-partisan for most of the history of their work. It seems unseemly to be anything but. Yet as they describe in this latest, it was impossible for them to write honestly and not address this fundamentally destructive turn in the behavior of the GOP.

Their point is not fundamentally partisan. They would criticize the Democrats if Democrats behaved in the same way. But the consequence of their speaking so clearly and convincingly is a book that strikes directly at one party. And in this era of “objective” journalism, where every truth must have two sides neutrally described (global warming, evolution, and the partisanship of political parties), there’s something jarring in reading their book.

I am fortunate that my subject doesn’t require their courage. Both parties pander to the money. But out of respect for them, convinced as I am of the fundamental character of the problem they described, I wrote as I did, repeating their strong attribution of blame.

(Note: I am not as convinced as they are that the problems of polarization are unrelated to the problem of money. I wish they had done more to address that point. But I am convinced that the truth they have so simply and directly stated is one we must all have the courage to repeat.)

There is something fundamentally unAmerican (in the non-McCarthy sense of that term) about the current attitude of the GOP to their (lack of) power. It is an attitude that is disrespectful of the best of our traditions, that echoes the worst of our traditions, and that is unsustainable for a nation that intends to thrive. More of us should call them out for it. Especially the only powerful politician in our system not running for reelection: The President.

(And all this would be true, even if a majority of Americans hadn’t voted Democratic in the House, Senate and Presidential races.)

Posted in Uncategorized | 37 Comments

On the sidewalks with No Money Mike

My family and I spent a couple hours with Mike Connolly (@nomoneyconnolly) and his fiance, Kacy, talking to Cambridge voters yesterday. Connolly is running for State Representative in a district that straddles Cambridge and Somerville. He’s a “progressive independent,” challenging an incumbent Democrat, Tim Toomey (who simultaneously sits on the Cambridge City Council, making him one of the highest paid government officials in MA, yet with one of the worst voting attendance records in MA).

Toomey has opposed “Clean Elections” in Massachusetts. The signal issue for Connolly is clean elections. He is taking no money to fund his campaign — and asking people to symbolically donate $0.00 to him on his website. He would be an incredible fresh voice to shake up an effectively one party state — around the issue many of us have been pushing.

But what was most striking about walking with “No Money Mike” was how many already knew him, and the excitement they could barely contain. Connolly’s yard signs are everywhere. And though radically underfunded, his message seems known. He stopped one 20-something woman to give her a brochure, and she said, “Wait, you’re Mike Connolly?” Then with the excitement of a teen meeting a superstar, she gave him a high five, and turned to her friend, “This is Mike Connolly, the guy I was telling you about.” And after a couple minutes of talking, she grabbed a pile of brochures and promised to spread them broadly. 

It struck me then that this is all it takes. Not the candidate, and not the campaign: Of course it takes that too, but that’s too often not enough. Beyond that, it takes this sort of excitement by people who know of the campaign, with something we on the Left don’t do as well as people on the Right: carry-through. If that woman actually carries through, and gives that literature to her friends, and if they, and others like them spread the word and turn out, this could be an important surprise for MA, and revitalize a campaign in MA — for Clean Money — that should have been resolved long ago.

We who care about this issue have few races this cycle where we can make a stand. The issue has been invisible at the Federal level. Too many in MA wish it would be forgotten locally too. But here is one place where a victory would be unambiguously a victory for the idea that this corrupt system must change. 

If you believe in this cause, do something to help it here. The idea of beating a 20 year incumbent Democrat circa Cambridge is, let’s say, difficult. But six thousand votes would win. The district has plenty of students. If you have friends there (the 26th), share with them the substance of this fight (Mike’s site; Toomey’s site), and give them a sense of its importance. 

Soon. 

Posted in Uncategorized | Leave a comment

What the Hell Is Being a Moderator For?

For the first time in as long as we can tell, neither candidate for president is addressing one of the top 10 issues that Americans believe should be a priority for the next president. Indeed, not just one issue, but two.

Since 2000, Gallup has been asking Americans to identify “how important a priority each of the following issues should be for the next President of the United States.” Every year before this one, those issues at the top are exactly the issues the candidates addressed on their websites. (Click here to see the research.) The order maybe different. There may be other issues addressed that are not on that top 10 list. But in every election since 2000, every one of the top 10 gets at least some serious consideration.

Until this year. Of the top 10 issues that Gallup identified, two are not even mentioned on either candidate’s website: number two on the list (with 87% of Americans believing it “extremely or very important”) — “reducing corruption in the federal government,” and number nine (with 76%) — “overcoming political gridlock.”

Ranked more highly than terrorism, the deficit, schools or social security, Americans want “corruption” to end. More than tax reform, or affordable access to college, Americans want “gridlock” to end. Yet neither campaign thinks it necessary to even mention these top priorities.

Why?

Let’s focus on issue number two: “reducing corruption in the federal government.” It’s clear that by “corruption,” Americans don’t mean the crimes of Rod Blagojevich or Jack Abramoff. Those scandals were long ago, and our memory is short. Instead, the only sort of “corruption” that has had the focus of the news media is the endless campaign cash that every candidate for any office is now seen obsessively to seek. Super PACs and Citizens United: these are the triggers to what we mean today by “corruption.” In response to that corruption, Americans are looking for a democracy that doesn’t seem so slimy.

Yet neither Romney nor Obama wants to talk about this corruption, though no doubt for very different reasons. Though Americans hate the system, beltway Republicans (and Romney) apparently love it. Some think it’s the only way for Republicans to remain competitive. So it’s obviously best for them to keep silent about an issue not likely to win them support. And while Obama no doubt hates the system as much as anyone, to raise it now would be to remind us that he promised to “take up that fight” to change the system, but has not yet gotten around to it. Worse, there’s something seemingly hypocritical about attacking SuperPACs while encouraging friends to send support to your own.

So it’s no surprise that the candidates won’t volunteer a plan to address this “corruption.” But why is it that they are not asked anyway? Why isn’t it the core of journalistic ethics to get the candidates to address the issues America wants addressed, especially when it is clear that candidates themselves don’t want that issue addressed?

This is a question not easily answered, because it’s not clear anymore just what a political journalist is. Candidates appear on news programs on their terms, not terms set by the show. They agree to debate only if their lawyers are permitted to set the rules and scope — which was precisely why the League of Women Voters could no longer agree to host debates. In the endless competition for access, politicians set the terms for access. And even if they don’t explicitly put issues off the table, everyone understands the consequences of making a candidate uncomfortable. There’s always a next time, unless, of course, you make things really bad for the candidate this time.

But there is one political journalist who is free of these constraints: the moderator of a presidential debate. Candidates have no choice but to show up to the debates. They have no way to hide from a question directly put. So if there’s one person the system should count on to ask the questions America wants answered but the candidates want avoided, it is the moderator of a presidential debate.

Yet no moderator to date has accepted this responsibility. Candy Crowley moderated the questions of randomly selected undecided voters — as if that would capture anything about the issues most of America wants answered. And Jim Lehrer let the rules get smothered by his need to be kind to important people — with the consequence that he never even got to the part of the debate where “corruption” might have been an issue.

In Robert Caro’s latest Johnson biography, he recounts a famous story about Johnson’s decision to take up the cause of civil rights. Kennedy had just been murdered. The nation was looking for a new leader. But Johnson was being counseled as strongly as his advisers could counsel not to bring up a civil rights bill. As Caro retells it:

[I]n the early hours of the morning… “one of the wise, practical people around the table” told [Johnson] to his face that a president shouldn’t spend his time and power on lost causes, no matter how worthy those causes might be.

“Well, what the hell’s the presidency for?” Lyndon Johnson replied.

The rest, as they say, is history.

It may be too much to wish for a president with Johnson’s strength of character. But is it too much to wish for moderator who is Johnson-like? Too much to wish for a moderator who wonders, what is being a moderator for?

It’s not the job of the moderator to be liked. It’s not the job to seem agreeable. The job is to make sure that America understands what the candidates believe about the issues that America cares about. Moderator laissez faire won’t get us there. A real political journalist just might.

Posted in HuffPo | 420 Comments

An amazing Vermont Amendment Weekend

Back from an amazing Vermont Amendment Weekend. Scores organizing to discuss the next steps to pushing corruption out of this government. Last year, Vermont passed a resolution demanding Congress propose an amendment reversing the hated Citizens United. This year, the question was what were the next steps — and on the table were three ideas: addressing corporate rights at the state level, pushing for Citizen Funded Elections (such as the voucher program I discussed, but generally any small-dollar funding system) at the state level, and a call on Congress for an Article V Convention (to propose amendments to the constitution). 

The weekend confirmed for me a point friends like Mark Meckler and Eric O’Keefe have been making — the problem of scale with government. Vermont is small. Its representatives really are. Four or five state senators and reps participated in the weekend. They connected directly with the people. They reminded me of the democracy I once described Brazil to reveal. (The key leader was an extraordinary Senator, Ginny Lyons, whose manner and skill made the term “politician” a term of praise.) It was impossible for me to imagine a similar conversation in California or New York. But here it felt genuine and, well, democratic. Count one for the value of local control, and smaller governments. It made me at least think sensible government was possible. 

And then there’s this wonderful sign. The organizers, Bill Butler and Susan Harritt, had literally scores of signs peppering the whole region of Jericho. This was my favorite. It builds on a story about a fight a Vermonter is having with Chick-Fil-a. The Vermonter believes in the goodness of Kale. (Bias alert: so do I). He started selling t-shirts: Eat More Kale. Chick-Fil-A didn’t like him “competing” with their trademarked “Eat Mor Chicken” campaign. So they sued him to stop. There’s a trailer for an in-works documentary here. But the above sign remixes the story in the obvious way — Corporations are neither people, nor Kale. Or so those crazy Vermonters believe. 

This movement — or better, these movements — are critical and important. They give me hope. 

Posted in Uncategorized | 1 Comment

Vermont's first "Amendment Weekend"

I’m excited and honored (and happy I get to bring my family) to be participating in Vermont’s first “Amendment Weekend.” Here’s the program. Click on the RSVP at the bottom if you want to participate. 

Amendment Weekend w/ Lawrence Lessig & Bill McKibben
October 13 &14 —— THREE EVENTS FOR YOU!

We enthusiastically invite you to hear
LAWRENCE LESSIG and BILL MCKIBBEN:

In a few weeks Lawrence Lessig will be in Vermont. 

He wants to meet with us to discuss where we should all be going together next in our Amendment Effort.

Last July, Senator Leahy held Senate Judiciary Committee Hearings on a Constitutional Amendment to rescind the US Supreme Court’s Citizens United decision. Professor Lessig was one of the star witnesses.  Larry is the author of Republic Lost- How Money Corrupts Congress and a Plan to Stop it. His lectures are available on the web, as is a fun interview he did w/ Jon Stewart on the Daily Show. 

 You all know Bill McKibben, who continues to fight to change the course of climate change devastation.  Bill will preview his Climate Change Musical Road Show. You are invited!

Special Interest Money is destroying democracy and the environment.

Citizens United is one example among many of how this is happening. 

Linking the Amendment and Environmental Movements will be a defining theme for the weekend.

OCT 13 – Saturday-

Lawrence Lessig & Bill McKibben

EVENT I: Professor Lessig
WHEN:  5 o’clock Saturday afternoon.
WHERE: University of Vermont. Lafayette Hall (next to Royall Tyler Theater). Room 108. Please get there at 4:45. Parking is available off Colchester Ave behind Ira Allen Chapel.

Larry’s message is, in part, that the threat to our Democracy and the need for a Constitutional Amendment goes well beyond Citizens United. What better subject when our election and lawmaking process seems to be controlled by special interest money. 

After Larry’s talk we will break for some conversation, some food, & Ben & Jerry’s ice cream. Please RSVP.

EVENT II: Bill Mckibben
WHEN: 7 PM Saturday evening

At 6:45 we will walk next door to Ira Allen Chapel for a dress rehearsal of Bill Mckibben’s new musical road show. Please RSVP if you want to attend. Seats will be reserved for you.

OCTOBER 14 — Sunday-

EVENT III – Amendment BBQ w/ Lawrence Lessig

WHEN:  Sunday 4:30- 6:30+/-

Bring a dish, bring yourself, and share a unique opportunity to talk with Lawrence Lessig.  Have a conversation with Larry over dinner.  Amendment activists from around Vermont will be there. This is an organized potluck. We will provide the main course and drinks.

Please RSVP and let us know what you will contribute to the potluck—side dishes and desserts.

WHERE: Bill Butler/ Susan Harritt homestead

               23 Bentley Lane, Jericho VT

    Folks are welcome to stay longer, if the conversation continues.

Accommodations are available for those traveling from a distance.

All offers of help will be appreciated. 

See you Oct. 13/14!

Bill Butler, Susan Harritt, Senator Ginny Lyons

RSVP 

Posted in Uncategorized | 4 Comments

Critically important new legislation introduced by (certain to be hero of this movement) Representative Sarbanes

I’ve been a fan of Congressman Sarbanes (D-MD) (son of Paul Sarbanes) for sometime. I wrote about his Grassroots Democracy work in HuffPo last December. Today, Sarbanes did something critically important for the anti-corruption movement: He introduced, with a significant number of co-sponsors, the most ambitious set of ideas for “Citizen Funded Campaigns” that we have seen in many years — The Grassroots Democracy Act

Sarbanes was a co-sponsor of the Fair Elections Now Act. That statute was a matching fund statute — small contributions were multiplied by matchin grants. This bill includes a matching fund provision, but adds (1) tax credits for small dollar contributions, (2) a pilot for a version of the idea Ayres/Ackerman originally proposed and which remixed and called “Democracy Vouchers,” (not visible in the website summary), and (3) a clever (though we’ll see what the Court thinks of it) way to deal with outside spending. 

This is important legislation to support and watch. We should all be grateful to Sarbanes for bringing it forward — especially in a political context that seems deeply committed to forgetting the issue. 

Posted in Uncategorized | 7 Comments

Believe the data: Important Safra Lab Research results

In my capacity as director of the Edmond J. Safra Center for Ethics, which runs a Lab studying “institutional corruption,” I am incredibly happy to report this very significant finding in a study we helped to support. 

A string of researchers (Aaron S. Kesselheim, M.D., J.D., M.P.H., Christopher T. Robertson, Ph.D., J.D., Jessica A. Myers, Ph.D., Susannah L. Rose, Ph.D., Victoria Gillet, B.A., Kathryn M. Ross, M.B.E., Robert J. Glynn, Ph.D., Steven Joffe, M.D., and Jerry Avorn, M.D.) ran tests to determine whether researchers discount research based upon whether it was funded by industry.

The conclusion published today in the New England Journal of Medicine is: they do — regardless of the merit of the underlying research. That is, regardless of how rigorous the underlying work is, the fact it has industry funding leads doctors to be less confident about the results. 

This is an important result. It is also an encouraging result. (Al)Most (all) in industry who fund research believe they are funding “the truth.” If the fact of their funding the research leads people to doubt “the truth,” that might lead them to fund the research differently — a donation to neutral funding entity, e.g. 

Or put differently: if industry funding is viewed as corrupting, then this research demonstrates: corruption doesn’t pay. 

The research is here. The Journal also has an editorial about the piece. 

Posted in Uncategorized | 6 Comments

The No Lobbying Pledge

There are campaigns that attack the enemy directly — think the British, in formation, Redcoats smartly cleaned. And then there are campaigns that attack indirectly — think of a virus, passing on a handshake, entering the body at the next sneeze. Rootstrikers has launched a campaign of the latter sort, intended to infect the system of corruption that our Congress has become.

Here’s some background to make this campaign understandable:

The most chilling passage in Jack Abramoff’s incredible book, Capitol Punishment (2011) comes about a third of the way in. As Abramoff writes:

After a number of meetings with [the chief of staff], possibly including meals or rounds of golf, I would say a few magic words: “When you are done working for the Congressman, you should come work for me at my firm.” With that, assuming the staffer had any interest in leaving Capitol Hill for K Street — and almost 90 percent of them do — I would own him and, consequently, that entire office. No rules had been broken, at least not yet.

Abramoff is describing perhaps the core of the corrupting influence that has evolved within our Congress — that too many, including Members and their staff, view Capitol Hill as a “farm league for K St.” No one wants to be a congressman forever (anymore). And with a potential salary increase of 1,452 percent (as calculated by United Republic), it’s easy to see why so many would keep their eyes on the real prize — a job as a lobbyist.

This fact is devastating for the prospects of reform. Any meaningful change of the corruption that is this system will certainly radically reduce the financial benefits of being a lobbyist. Lobbyists will never be eliminated, and neither should they be: they serve an essential role in advising the government about the effect of the government’s actions, or inactions. But the value of lobbying services would fall dramatically if Congress were to adopt a system for funding elections that would remove the lobbyists from the center.

And thus the inherent conflict of interest that any reform would face: The very Congress that would be asked to vote for reform would be filled with people who have an interest against reform. To vote for reform would be to vote against a 1,452 percent pay increase. Who among us could do that?

What reformers thus need is a Congress without that conflict: Members who could not benefit from the bonus of being a lobbyist, and thus who could vote honestly and fairly about any proposals for reform.

Enter the No Lobbying Pledge.

The “No Lobbying Pledge” is a promise by a candidate that if he or she is elected then, for 10 years after serving in Congress, he or she will not profit from providing any “lobbying services.” The pledge doesn’t try to restrict what ex-Members can do. It simply blocks them from earning money from the provision of “lobbying services.” It is a pledge that a candidate openly and formally makes, by signing a document that makes clear his or her commitment, and posting that signed pledge for the world to see.

This pledge is not like the ordinary pledge that candidates are now routinely asked to make. Many good souls — No Labels, in particular — are rightly opposed to pledges that purport to limit the freedom of legislators to make legislative judgments based upon their view at the time of what makes sense. But that is not what the No Lobbying Pledge does. It does not constrain any decision by a legislator while she is a legislator. It is a pledge about what she will do after she has served in Congress. And it is motivated by the concern that — like Abramoff’s chiefs-of-staff — farm league congressman won’t keep their eye on the ball.

Our challenge now is to build a movement to get candidates to take the pledge. Today, we announce the first: Representative Jim Cooper, a Blue Dog Democrat from Tennessee, who has been elected to Congress eleven times, and who coined the phrase, “a farm league for K St.” A committed reformer of Congress, we could imagine no better member to be the first to take the pledge.

Now we just need 800 more. At our site, we have provided the infrastructure for fueling twitter campaigns to get members to sign.

But what’s really needed are citizens to show up to a candidate event and ask the candidate directly: “Will you promise to work just for us, by taking the No Lobbying Pledge?” This is an uncomfortable question to ask, because everyone understands that it is an uncomfortable question for candidates to answer. But if we’re to end this corruption, and restore this Republic, this is the courage of citizens that it will take.

So join us. Go to the site and download the pledge. Launch a twitter campaign to ask candidates in your district to take the pledge by uploading a challenge. Go to a candidate event and ask the question. Indeed, have a friend video you asking the question, and we’ll post it and promote it. Do everything you can do to get both candidates in your district to take a position. And after you do, let us know, and we’ll take it from there.

It is a long road to reform. We will get there, I am convinced. But we must first destroy the resistance to reform that now lives within this Congress. The No Lobbying Pledge is the virus to achieve that destruction.
(Original post on HuffPo)

Posted in HuffPo | 251 Comments