
Lawrence Lessig wants to run for president in an unconventional way - nkassis
http://www.washingtonpost.com/news/post-politics/wp/2015/08/11/lawrence-lessig-wants-to-run-for-president-in-a-most-unconventional-way/
======
rayiner
Some of his ideas are great (particularly trying to take on gerrymandering),
but I think on the money issue he's nearsighted.

> He launched Mayday PAC to much fanfare in the spring of 2014, billing it as
> the "super PAC to end super PACs." But it failed to play a decisive role in
> any race that year.

As Lessig found out, money by itself cannot buy power. Money is a means for
magnifying the impact of forces that are already in play.

Consider, for example, climate change. During the last debate of the last
Presidential election, Barak Obama was falling over himself to be more pro-
coal than Mitt Romney. Was it because he hoped to court the coal-industry
lobbyists and turn their firehose of political spending in his direction?
There wasn't a chance in hell of that happening, and he knew it. He did it to
court the voters in central and southern Illinois whose livelihoods are
dependent on the coal industry there. We're a sprawling suburban nation
addicted to cheap gasoline. Energy companies would have tremendous power even
if they didn't spend a penny lobbying.

The same is true for banking and finance. People complain about fancy
financial instruments, but at the end of the day main street businesses are
utterly dependent on payroll loans, consumers are dependent on credit cards,
and everyone wants to get a fat adjustable-rate mortgage so they can buy a big
suburban house. Do you think banks need to spend any money lobbying to sway
politicians in their favor?

And I'll also go out on a limb and suggest that money being a factor in
politics isn't as bad as it seems. At least when money can influence politics,
the noveau-riche can upset the old guard. Consider the auto industry.
Traditional carmakers don't need to spend money to buy political power--the
fact that they employ hundreds of thousands of middle-class workers guarantees
that. But as traditional cars decline, and the Teslas and Googles of the world
remake the industry, it's probably a good thing that those companies can use
money to overcome the inertia and political mindshare of existing car
companies.

~~~
rpedela
It is not so much that money leads to influence, but that politicians spend
most of their time fundraising. They spend so much time on it that they do not
have time to govern effectively. That is his primary argument. He wants to
create a system where politicians only have to worry about fundraising during
the election rather than their entire term.

There is also this side benefit that whatever influence the money buys
evaporates to some extent.

~~~
BurningFrog
The simple way to fix that is - counterintuitively - to abolish all campaign
finance restrictions.

With vastly more money available, politicians would have to spend far less,
both in time and favors, to finance their campaigns.

~~~
rhino369
I always wondered what would happen if instead of making donations a public
disclosure, that we did the opposite. We make it illegal to tell people you
donated to politicians. Totally secret.

You can't quid pro quo if you don't know about the quid.

~~~
quonn
How would you propose to implement this idea?

~~~
aetherson
I don't know what his proposal is, but necessarily step one would have to be
"a constitutional amendment voiding the First Amendment."

~~~
p_eter_p
His proposed amendment is here:

[http://lessig.tumblr.com/post/14010963493/proposed-28th-
amen...](http://lessig.tumblr.com/post/14010963493/proposed-28th-amendment-
beta-v9)

And yeah, section 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."

~~~
aetherson
Oh good. So, to be clear, this proposed Amendment would legalize literally any
burden on speech so long as the speech was not literally one person speaking
alone using entirely their own money?

Like, under this Amendment, Congress passed a law saying "specifically the
Democratic National Committee does not get to engage in any speech of any kind
-- it may send no correspondence, buy no advertising, write no editorials,"
that'd be okay because the DNC is a non-natural person and as such has _no_
rights under the First Amendment.

The extent to which people on the left have let the very words "corporate
personhood," utterly divorced from any actual implications thereof, becomes a
bugaboo that drives them to silly positions is really amazing.

~~~
mosburger
Wouldn't "save to assure content and viewpoint neutrality" cover the example
you gave?

~~~
aetherson
Not as I read it. That clause is about natural persons.

Under this amendment, Congress could restrict the speech of natural persons
according to article 1 of the amendment (that is: it could limit the
expenditures of natural persons in support of a candidate within 90 days of an
election). But it could not do so in ways that were non-neutral (so it could
not say "Josiah Bartlett may not speak within 90 days of an election").

Similarly, state and local governments could also restrict speech of natural
persons in this way.

But also: the First Amendment would just straight-up not apply at all to "non-
natural persons." Not within the restrictions of article 1, but at all.
Entirely.

This isn't _quite_ as crazy as, for example, completely abolishing corporate
personhood (which would pretty much upend civic life in America), but even if
you think that Citizens United caused a watershed change in American politics
(and, seriously: can anyone tell me they see a practical change in politics
post-Citizens United?), removing ALL free speech protections for people who
are channeling their speech through any kind of resource aggregation is an
insane overreaction.

~~~
dragonwriter
> But also: the First Amendment would just straight-up not apply at all to
> "non-natural persons."

It doesn't say that. It doesn't say that the First Amendment does not provide
Constitutional rights to non-natural persons, only that if it is construed to
provide such rights, those rights cannot be construed as unalienable.

This is sort of odd language; and its not really clear what it means. The most
likely interpretation I see is that it reduces potential intrusions on First
Amendment rights of non-natural persons from the kinds of things judged under
strict scrutiny (usually referred to as "fundamental" rather than
"unalienable", though the terms are closely related in their general meaning
and this seems to the most natural mechanism of giving effect to the language
in the proposed amendment), even when the restrictions are not content-
neutral; this would _probably_ leave both content-specific and content-neutral
regulation of speech that impacted only the rights of non-natural persons
subject to intermediate scrutiny, but that's not entirely clear (and it would
certainly lead to natural persons asserting that _their_ rights were impinged
by the restriction on the non-natural person that they control.)

> removing ALL free speech protections for people who are channeling their
> speech through any kind of resource aggregation is an insane overreaction.

But it certainly doesn't do that. If a natural person has a free speech
interested affected by a law, the fact that they are channeling their speech
through some mechanism of "resource aggregation" wouldn't prevent them from
asserting their _own_ First Amendment right, even if the amendment (as it does
not) stripped _all_ First Amendment protection from non-natural persons.

~~~
aetherson
Well, you sound like you're more versed in the language of Constitutional
interpretation than I am.

But a few points:

1\. I would continue to not be very happy with language abridging the First
Amendment if it wasn't very clear what that language meant.

2\. If indeed the intended purpose of that part of the proposed Amendment was
to lower the level of scrutiny given to laws abridging the speech of non-
natural persons, I guess I'd like someone to make the case that that's the
reform that we need -- that the scrutiny level of such laws is the big deal in
our political system.

3\. And, look, all non-natural persons are ultimately owned by one or more
natural persons. If natural persons continue to have free speech rights
through corporations even if the corporations per se do not have free speech
rights, I'd again like to hear someone make the argument that this is a
positive change. My immediate takeaway is that this would create an incredibly
complicated legal situation for the courts to adjudicate with uncertain
results.

------
ipsin
[https://lessigforpresident.com/the-act/](https://lessigforpresident.com/the-
act/)

[https://lessigforpresident.com/donate/](https://lessigforpresident.com/donate/)

I will be surprised if he doesn't reach his $1M goal, and much more surprised
if anything substantive comes of the effort.

The "launch and resign" plan smells bad -- it seems like a hack to avoid
having a complete platform, implying that the government will lack a leader
during that interval, and using that as motivation to pass the act seems like
a bad idea. It also raises the question of who the real VP would be.

~~~
ersii
Please be aware that the campaign only wants donations from _US citizens_. I
do not know why, but according to
[https://lessigforpresident.com/donate/](https://lessigforpresident.com/donate/):

    
    
      By clicking “donate,” I certify that:
      1. I am a U.S. citizen or lawfully admitted permanent resident of the U.S.

~~~
mikestew
Donations for U. S. elections cannot come from foreign nationals[0].

[0]
[http://www.fec.gov/pages/brochures/citizens.shtml#prohibited](http://www.fec.gov/pages/brochures/citizens.shtml#prohibited)

------
njharman
"Lessig said he would serve as president only as long as it takes to pass a
package of government reforms"

Well that will take longer than two terms. Congress doesn't even play along
with the people who are incahoots in rigging the system. It's beyond
ridiculous to believe they will play along with their own destruction.

~~~
dragonwriter
> Well that will take longer than two terms.

That...depends. If Lessig could get elected President with a platform of very
specific reforms of the type he is talking about and a pledge to resign in
favor of his VP when that package was complete, it would almost certainly mean
that his campaign was significant in mobilizing popular attention on those
issues in a way which affect the composition of the next Congress and change
the political prospects for those reforms. (Particularly in the House.

> Congress doesn't even play along with the people who are incahoots in
> rigging the system. It's beyond ridiculous to believe they will play along
> with their own destruction.

Lessig's proposed reforms won't destroy Congress (arguably, it would _free_
Congress.)

~~~
dllthomas
I strongly agree with your point that pushing back against the kind of
groundswell that would be necessary to get Lessig elected would be hard, and
he thus stands quite substantially better odds of getting his agenda through
(especially narrow as it is) than typical.

That said, I think you miss the parent's point in your last sentence. It would
not destroy _congress_ as an entity, but it would change the landscape
sufficiently that it safe incumbents would be at risk of losing their seats.
That is always what limits reforms of campaign process.

------
cryoshon
Hm, hopefully he won't act as a spoiler for Bernie. A Sanders-Lessig ticket
would look pretty good if Bernie can't get Warren. Bit early in the game for
that chatter, though.

Lessig still isn't a household name, so I think it's far too late for him to
participate in this election cycle as a real candidate. That being said, he's
also imperfect as a candidate for a few reasons. Lessig is really good at
presentations and speaking eloquently, but he still doesn't quite rile people
up in the way that is needed for his kind of insurgent campaign (against who,
exactly?). Lessig also doesn't have the cash to get noticed nationwide. He's
setting goals to raise a million, whereas Hillary is planning a billion dollar
campaign, and the Republicans are likely planning a several billion dollar
campaign for whoever they pick.

Also, an elephant in the room: the issues Lessig is running on (campaign
finance reform, voting reform, ending gerrymandering) are not actually non-
partisan in the way that he is trying to market them. Everyone (everyone!)
knows that campaign finance reform, gerrymandering, and voter reform are the
left's issues.

Why? Because the right in the USA needs voter exclusion and balkanization(via
the false issue of voter fraud aimed at poor populations) in order to win
elections. Campaign finance reform is similar; big money influences both sides
heavily, but they favor the right for their business-friendly disposition. Big
money favoring the right wing means that prospective candidates from the left
are also vetted against how business friendly they are, pulling the mainstream
left wing toward the right wing, assuming that candidates act rationally and
take the money for grabs.

This series of behaviors ultimately results in the far-right wing business
cartel promoters that currently comprise Congress. Claiming that Lessig isn't
some kind of far-left (for the US) candidate is a tad disingenuous, even if he
actually believes it. A popular and well-moneyed Lessig would be a huge threat
to big money's influence on politics, to be sure-- in the way that Sanders is
currently.

~~~
twoodfin
_Because the right in the USA needs voter exclusion and balkanization(via the
false issue of voter fraud aimed at poor populations) in order to win
elections._

I like your comment overall, but there's no evidence I'm aware of that this is
true. Massachusetts didn't elect a Republican governor in 2014 because
otherwise Democratic voters there are balkanized or intimidated. Don't like
that specific example? Choose another.

Besides, gerrymandering doesn't help the GOP that much. If anything, it's the
opposite[1]. If the Democrats want the composition of the House to reflect
their national vote totals, they'd need to draw some pretty nonsensical
districts to "dilute" their highly concentrated urban votes into suburban
areas where they could help swing more seats. This appears to be one reason
why Lessig is arguing for larger, multi-member Congressional districts.

[http://www.nytimes.com/2014/09/07/upshot/why-democrats-
cant-...](http://www.nytimes.com/2014/09/07/upshot/why-democrats-cant-
win.html?_r=0)

~~~
cryoshon
It's math and realpolitik. The US is set to have a majority of minorities
relatively soon after a long period of time on the horizon. Minorities are
poorer, and don't vote for Republicans when they do vote, which isn't that
frequently. Thus, they need to be prevented from voting if they seem as though
they are inclined to vote, because they will not vote for right wing
candidates in the way that poor whites will. The Hispanic population inclined
to vote Republican due to religion does defy the paradigm I outlined, but
they're an outlier. This is why we see all sorts of "Voter ID" initiatives
coming out of red states. Getting an ID that costs $25 is easy for whites, who
are more likely to have the money to do so, and more likely to vote Republican
as well.

You say gerrymandering doesn't help the GOP, then link an article which
describes how gerrymandering has allowed for the complete and uncontested
domination of half of the legislature by the GOP for over a decade. There's
only two houses in Congress, and three presidential elections and numerous
mid-terms is a long time for half of congress to be safely locked down. Then
there's the fact that the lockdown of the House has occurred during a very
protracted time of endless GOP fumblings, failings, catastrophes, and
unprecedented low approval ratings. Without gerrymandering, the House GOP
would have been ghosts in 2008, then again in 2012, then again in 2014...

As far as Massachusetts goes, we have a history of picking centrists when the
left's candidate is weak. This happened in recent memory with Baker, Romney,
and also Scott Brown. That being said, MA is also strongly left/European, so
you wouldn't even see the start of anti-voter campaigns against either side
here.

~~~
saryant
Texas went minority-majority in 2011 yet voted resoundingly Republican in the
2012 presidential and 2014 gubernatorial elections—Davis lost by 20 points in
November.

~~~
bsder
Any woman in Texas is starting from an in-built 10 point disadvantage. Ann
Richards was damn near legendary genius levels of campaign competent, and she
still needed the opposing side to basically self-destruct to barely squeak by
to win the governorship.

So, if you combine the fact that Wendy Davis was female _and_ was facing a
very competent political opponent, 20 points isn't really surprising. Her
distribution was exactly what you would expect (check the county results map
on the right hand side):
[https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Texas_gubernatorial_election,_...](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Texas_gubernatorial_election,_2014)

Now, compare that to Ann Richards win and loss:
[https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Texas_gubernatorial_election,_...](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Texas_gubernatorial_election,_1990)
[https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Texas_gubernatorial_election,_...](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Texas_gubernatorial_election,_1994)

So, Wendy Davis took the districts she was expected to take (possible
exception being San Antonio), and nothing more.

------
lvs
This may sadly pull some critical primary voters from Sanders, who stands in
an ideologically similar area, assuming Lessig picks up any steam at all.

~~~
DiabloD3
Yeah, I don't want Lessig to accidentally split the vote. Lessig might want to
run with Sanders instead of against him

------
ekianjo
> "We have this fantasy politics right now where people are talking about all
> the wonderful things they’re going to do while we know these things can’t
> happen inside the rigged system.”

Followed by:

> Lessig said he would serve as president only as long as it takes to pass a
> package of government reforms and then resign the office and turn the reins
> over to his vice president. He said he would pick a vice president "who is
> really, clearly, strongly identified with the ideals of the Democratic Party
> right now,"

So, wait. You don't want the "System", yet your Vice President is basically a
member of the Democratic Party which is part of the precisely bi-party, rigged
System right now ?

Makes a lot of sense if you want to perpetuate the said rigged System.

~~~
toufka
I think the idea is that _if_ you can pass the election reform, then anything
that comes afterwards - republican or democrat would be better than what would
have come otherwise. The VP doesn't matter at all. Break the rigged system and
all else will follow - even if it takes a few more election cycles to get
there.

~~~
thrill
But Lessig was quite emphatic about his intent to select his successor (the
VP) based on Party principles - no discussion on Constitutional principles at
all in his platform. Why would Sanders or Warren want to be his VP? If they
knew they would become President as soon as Lessig enacted his own brand of
mandates, and that those mandates were important enough to get him elected,
then why wouldn't they take up the mantle of proposing those mandates in the
first place?

------
JayHost
I made 500 phone calls for Mayday last year on their behalf.

This is not Win / Lose or Patriots vs Seahawks.

This is forcing the most important issue to be confronted on the big stage.

[https://lessigforpresident.com/](https://lessigforpresident.com/)

------
p_monk
If the problem is that monied interest control policy, "getting money out of
politics" doesn't solve the problem.

Look as Israel as a cautionary tale of a country that did everything right
according to the liberal prescriptions. Regardless of implementing everything
that Lessig calls for, monied interests still control the political system.

How does it work?

Well, take a look at Sheldon Adelson's actions. In the US, he buys his
influence by being one of the biggest GOP donors. In Israel, he buys his
influence by operating the largest daily newspaper (Israel Hoyim), which he
runs at a loss of 20+ million a year. Israel Hoyim is the mouthpiece of the
Netanyahu government. The paper never strays from the party line, in the same
way that Granma never strays from party line in Cuba. This gives Adelson a
tremendous amount of influence over the government. Even moreso than he's able
to buy in the US. Billionaires will always find creative ways skirt the rules
and buy their influence.

~~~
sams99
"by operating the largest daily newspaper"

Cough, I lived in Israel for many years... the biggest daily papers are

[https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Yedioth_Ahronoth](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Yedioth_Ahronoth)
(centralist)

[https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Maariv_(newspaper)](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Maariv_\(newspaper\))
(centralist)

[https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Haaretz](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Haaretz)
(Leftish)

Also the argument is kind of weird, "don't ban rape, people will still figure
out a way to hurt other people, so ... no point"

~~~
p_monk
Israel Hayom is indeed the largest paper daily in Israel. There's really no
other paper that's even close at this point. Yediot Ahronot was a long-time
incumbent, but they simply can't compete.

[http://www.nytimes.com/2014/04/08/opinion/rosner-how-to-
sile...](http://www.nytimes.com/2014/04/08/opinion/rosner-how-to-silence-the-
israeli-right.html)

I'm not arguing that we shouldn't take steps to take money out of politics. My
argument is yes, let's do this, but let's be realistic about what it will
achieve. At the same time, if we really care about eliminating the role money
plays in politics, then we need to work towards a system with an equitable
distribution of wealth.

------
ZoeZoeBee
It would be nice if the article articulated his ideas for change, other than
just overturning the Citizens United decision. For decades the public who
haven't been lulled to sleep have clamored for Campaign Finance Reform,
increased Limits On Lobbyist, and Transparency.

What did we get. Citizens United, lobbyists writing 10,000 page laws riddled
with loopholes, and Bills and Administrations which do the exact opposite of
what they say.

~~~
toufka
It's curious, because he's actually (unusually) explicit about what this
referendum would be for.[1]

1) 'Equal Right to Vote' \- "...automatic registration, and shift election day
to a national holiday."

2) 'Equal Representation' \- "ranked choice voting" & degerrymandering

3) 'Citizen Funded Elections' \- to align, [money = citizen] rather than
[money = moneyed citizen]

[1] [https://lessigforpresident.com/the-
act/](https://lessigforpresident.com/the-act/)

~~~
JoshTriplett
Unfortunately, the second seems to be implemented via a site that promotes
Instant Runoff Voting (IRV), which is one of the only voting systems that
manages the impressive feat of being _worse_ than first-past-the-post voting
(our current system). Not least of which because IRV is one of the few systems
where voting for someone can make them lose. IRV encourages people to list
their full preferences, but then completely ignores all rankings except the
first until the first loses. So if you vote A>B>C, your vote does absolutely
nothing to help B win unless A loses first.

There are several different systems that are quite a bit better, including
approval voting (simpler) and Condorcet (closest to ideal, still easy to
explain until someone asks what happens with a tie, which rarely happens
anyway).

As for #3, sure, I'd love to see candidates' election campaigns funded
primarily by citizens, _at the option of those citizens_. That doesn't mean I
want to see them funded by mandatory taxes. Where can I cash in my voucher for
an "all of these candidates suck" refund, for instance?

#1, on the other hand, seems like a great idea. Could go hand-in-hand with
making sure it's a _severe_ crime to deprive anyone or any group of their
ability to vote (such as the various stunts that have occurred in past
elections where certain districts "mysteriously" had malfunctions).

~~~
alwaysmetara
I don't think IRV is worse than first-past-the-post (FPTP) at all. IRV
eliminates vote splitting, reduces strategic voting, and results in fewer
wasted votes. Also, the fact that IRV ignores all rankings except the first
until the first is eliminated means that you won't hurt your most preferred
candidate by changing the order of your other preferences. If you're voting
A>B>C, then if A wins, then you wouldn't really care whether you helped B win
or not.

Approval voting has the problem of electing a candidate that's acceptable
instead of one who the majority actually likes.

Also, IRV has a greater tendency to elect the Condorcet winner when compared
to FPTP.

Every voting system has its problems but IRV is still a lot better than FPTP.

~~~
JoshTriplett
> I don't think IRV is worse than first-past-the-post (FPTP) at all. IRV
> eliminates vote splitting, reduces strategic voting, and results in fewer
> wasted votes. Also, the fact that IRV ignores all rankings except the first
> until the first is eliminated means that you won't hurt your most preferred
> candidate by changing the order of your other preferences. If you're voting
> A>B>C, then if A wins, then you wouldn't really care whether you helped B
> win or not.

IRV doesn't eliminate strategic voting. Yes, if A is going to win, then A>B>C
is great. However, voting A>B>C rather than B>A>C can cause C to win instead
of B. It doesn't "eliminate vote splitting" except in the case where a third-
party candidate has no chance; in the case where the third-party candidate
actually _has_ a chance, IRV can break horribly.

See
[http://minguo.info/election_methods/irv](http://minguo.info/election_methods/irv)
and
[http://minguo.info/election_methods/evaluation](http://minguo.info/election_methods/evaluation)
.

> Approval voting has the problem of electing a candidate that's acceptable
> instead of one who the majority actually likes.

And that's a bug? Approval tends to find satisficing solutions, yes. Condorcet
does better, though; it's just harder to deploy (but no harder than IRV).

~~~
ClayShentrup
Condorcet is better?

[http://ScoreVoting.net/AppCW.html](http://ScoreVoting.net/AppCW.html)

------
jedberg
Most people don't care enough to care about or understand how important
campaign finance is, so it's unlikely he'd even win the nomination, but
hopefully he can get enough support to at least get into the debate and bring
the issue to a wider audience.

~~~
dougmany
But they care about more days off. In one of his videos he says voting day
must be on a national holiday. He should really lead with this.

~~~
twoodfin
Wouldn't that be as likely to decrease turnout? Who wants to line up at the
senior center on their day off?

~~~
Chinjut
Who wants to line up at the senior center at all? But you're more likely to do
it on a day when you have free time than a day when you're harried and
exhausted.

------
tlb
"I will be leader just long enough to institute the necessary reforms" has led
to lifelong dictatorships in other countries. Lessig doesn't seem the dictator
type, but that particular promise should scare students of history.

~~~
mikegioia
That would matter if the US had unlimited presidency terms but it doesn't and
there's 0 threat of that happening.

The only prior example of this in America is when George Washington stepped
down as Commander and Chief when he felt his service was finished.

------
MrZongle2
Nothing against Lessig, but he has about as much chance of becoming President
as _I_ do, and I'm not even forming an exploratory committee.

The American electorate has been conditioned to vote for Team Red or Team
Blue, and within those increasingly-similar teams their preferred standard-
bearers will be chosen by a consensus of large donors in a series of luncheons
and closed-door meetings, primaries be damned. It's not so much a sinister New
World Order conspiracy as it is a general desire by the elite to influence
future governance to secure their wealth.

If this weren't the case, then Sanders' standing wouldn't be so noteworthy,
and O'Malley wouldn't be concerned about his party's nebulous debate schedule.
Likewise, we wouldn't be hearing as much about Jeb Bush.

I'm not saying that third-party disruption can't take place, but the time to
be forming exploratory committees was months and months ago, if not years. The
2016 Presidential race is well underway, and Lessig hasn't even stepped up to
the starting line.

~~~
cryoshon
For this election, you're right. It's possible that Lessig is actually trying
to posture for a 2020 run that will have a real chance of winning.

I highly doubt that Lessig will get the percentage of the vote required for
public funding, though. I don't see this campaign as anything other than
laying groundwork for future campaigns.

------
arxpoetica
What if one likes the ideas (possibly?), but isn't a Democrat?

Makes it difficult when one doesn't like the VP.

~~~
toufka
Give him his 2 minutes to pitch his idea. The thought is that no matter what
your political ideals are, you're better off fixing voting reform first.
Whatever issues you care about, you can't actually properly vote them into
place. Pick your political goal - whatever it is - it can't effectively be
voted upon right now unless you have significant cash.

Your _primary_ issue right now as a US voter (Lessig says), be you Republican,
Democrat, or anything else, is actually voting reform. Fix that and then you
can go back to voting - and this time effectively. It shouldn't matter what
other political issues drive you - you can't get any until you fix how voting
itself works.

~~~
jawns
So what you're saying is that Lessig's candidacy is like regular expressions.

If a Republican's primary problem is voting reform, and the way he goes about
fixing that problem is to ensure that a solid Democrat gets elected president
... well, now he's got two problems.

~~~
toufka
Except it's delayed in action - there are already other threads running
that'll still be running by the time the expression completes. So it's okay if
you've got zombie threads running until the entire process is upgraded. It
gives you time to initialize a clean object before its effective.

You won't get immediate (2-4) year change to effectiveness. But during the
subsequent election cycles you will. So it'll take at least 6 years following
the passing of the act to upgrade the process entirely.

------
PythonicAlpha
For those, that do not yet know "Lesterland", should get to know it:

[http://lesterland.lessig.org/](http://lesterland.lessig.org/) (there is a
great video talk of Lessig on the page)

BTW: Lessig is great!

------
nkurz
What't the advantage of Lessig's win-reform-resign approach rather than
convincing a more electable candidate to commit to the same reform? If there
is enough public support for Lessig to win the election, presumably there
would be enough support for another candidate with more outside support (such
as his designated successor) to win with the same platform.

The main reason I can see is that Lessig himself views his promise of reform
to be more reliable than any another candidate's promise. True or not, I think
it would be difficult to convince the general electorate that he should be
trusted more than any other candidate.

~~~
mtgx
He doesn't even have to convince one about it - there already is a candidate
that supports such reforms and that's Bernie Sanders. Is he guaranteed to win?
No. But he sure as hell has a much better chance of winning than Lessig. He
should use his crowdfunds to support him.

~~~
jkestner
Yeah, but wouldn't it get people's attention if two candidates on stage at the
debate spoke to the same issue? I imagine that will have a much bigger impact
than one candidate who people already are inclined to dismiss as too far left.
Safety in numbers.

------
drjesusphd
This is interesting, but I have a hard time seeing how being a transparent
office holder (through voter referendums) would work for the office of POTUS.
I can see it working well as a legislator and would prefer a system where one
of the houses of Congress is direct referendum.

I think it would be far more interesting to completely "vacate" the office and
do nothing, without formally resigning. The point being that elected officials
have far less power than people think. I think the executive would function
largely the same without a president or vice.

------
elihu
I'm having trouble imagining any outcome other than drawing votes away from
Sanders. Even if he were to win the primary and the general election, congress
is very unlikely to budge.

> "Even if she did say exactly the right things, I don’t think it’s credible
> that she could achieve it because she – and the same thing with Bernie –
> would be coming to office with a mandate that’s divided among five or six
> different issues," Lessig said. "The plausibility of creating the kind of
> mandate necessary to take on the most powerful forces inside of Washington
> is zero. This is what led me to recognize that we have to find a different
> way of doing this.”

I don't agree with this logic, that "policital capitol" is split among
multiple mandates, and that having more mandates makes you less likely to
achieve any of them. Having a position on many issues just means that more
voters have a reason to vote for (or against) you. Many of those positions are
expected of someone running for office under a certain party, and not stating
a clear policy preference doesn't usually win you votes from the other party,
it loses you votes from your own party.

I think Lessig's efforts are better spent continuing to advocate for an
article V convention and influencing congressional elections via the Mayday
PAC.

------
drivingmenuts
It's a interesting idea, but hopelessly doomed. A viable candidate needs to
articulate on many issues, as The President doesn't have the luxury of only
focusing on a single issue. There's a whole cabinet full of people who run
departments that he needs to have potential policies to put in place.

As a potential spoiler candidate, it _might_ work by forcing more attention to
campaign financing reform, but it's hard to take him seriously beyond that.

------
fractal618
Registered Independent voter here, he's got my vote.

------
platz
[http://www.huffingtonpost.com/lawrence-lessig/why-i-want-
to-...](http://www.huffingtonpost.com/lawrence-lessig/why-i-want-to-
run_b_7971368.html)

------
alwaysdoit
I wish he would just run conventionally.

------
toyg
Depressing. The whole project basically ensures he won't be elected (who wants
to vote for a President who will not rule?), he's just looking for some quick
exposure.

It would have been more intellectually honest to do what Jeremy Corbyn has
done in the UK: running wholeheartedly, albeit assuming he won't be elected,
just to inject a range of ideas in the debate.

~~~
Phlarp
So, what Bernie Sanders and Elizabeth Warren are doing?

~~~
tanderson92
Elizabeth Warren isn't running for president, and you are assuming that
Sanders doesn't believe he will win. Why do you assume such a thing?

------
pbreit
If it wasn't so frowned upon for Electoral College electors to "change" their
vote, wouldn't that enable more "third party" runs (which would be "a good
thing")?

I'd actually like to see Trump or Lessig run but people are so worried about a
like-minded candidate leading to their party's loss.

------
smacktoward
I admire Larry Lessig's ideals and motivations, but I feel like he
consistently undermines his own efforts because of the small problem that he
doesn't understand how American politics actually works and seems to have no
desire to learn.

~~~
jessaustin
That's nothing: he's a law professor at Harvard who doesn't seem to understand
how American law works. He was genuinely surprised by the _Eldred_ verdict,
and his proposals consistently display little understanding of (or regard for)
the First Amendment.

EDIT: [http://www.legalaffairs.org/issues/March-
April-2004/story_le...](http://www.legalaffairs.org/issues/March-
April-2004/story_lessig_marapr04.msp)

~~~
jellicle
That might be the dumbest thing I've ever read on HN.

Are you aware that Larry Lessig was Eldred's lead counsel, and argued the case
before the Supreme Court?

Are you aware that he was arguing in support of the First Amendment in that
case, and his opponents were arguing against it?

~~~
jessaustin
Are you aware that Lessig lost that case? Why don't you read that link I
provided? Doesn't Lessig seem to agree with me when he notes, " _I had let a
view of the law that I liked interfere with my view of the law as it is._ "

His attacks on _Citizens United_ are just another example of this. A pragmatic
legal mind would see that there is nothing corrupt about a couple of amateur
filmmakers making and advertising an amateur film about a politician. A
creative legal mind would find a way to fight corruption without fighting the
First Amendment rights of amateur filmmakers.

------
kevinpet
I guess we've now discovered our generation's Ralph Nader.

------
joe5150
"Lessig said he would serve as president only as long as it takes to pass a
package of government reforms"

So in other words four years, eight if he gets re-elected.

Awfully roundabout way of saying that....

------
gweinberg
He lost me at Sanders.

~~~
clavalle
Why?

~~~
jeremyt
Because, as an entrepreneur, the absolute last person on earth who I trust to
understand the importance of startup investment or innovation is Bernie
Sanders. From what I can tell, he's basically a 1960s liberal/socialist. He
wants to bring back unions and make them strong, increased government
regulation on just about everything, and I'd be very surprised if he was
pleasantly disposed to anything in the sharing economy.

Having done a startup myself, and now as an investor, taxes have already gone
up from 15% to 23.8%. It appears to me that Sanders' solution to everything is
higher taxes on the rich (investors). He wants to raise the capital gains tax,
he wants to raise the estate tax, and he wants to eliminate the cap on the
payroll tax so that rich people pay an extra 12 or so percent on top of the
combined ~40-50% of taxes they already paid, combined state and federal.

~~~
pnut
What's so bad about the estate tax? Afraid your sheltered little brats can't
hack it with only $5M?

~~~
refurb
I'm opposed to the estate tax because at some point in time the money is mine.
If I've paid all my taxes, why should I have to give up more just because I've
died?

And unless an estate tax is 100%, you're not going to change how wealth is
passed down. Bill Gates could pay a 50% estate tax when he dies and still
leave every offspring a "sheltered brat" as you put it.

~~~
Frondo
You don't actually get to own anything after you're dead, you know. There
isn't a "you" there to do the owning.

~~~
refurb
Now you're just being pedantic.

I should be able to give what I own when I'm alive to whomever I please once I
die. That is, unless you believe I never owned it in the first place.

~~~
Frondo
You can, of course, but it's taxed, just like lots and lots of transactions
are taxed. I don't see why a death should somehow be exempt from the class of
"events that are taxed," especially when there's all kinds of good reasons for
not encouraging dynastic wealth from generation to generation.

------
Apocryphon
Would Lessig be an ideal "hackers' candidate"? Hypothetically, would he pardon
Snowden and go after the NSA?

~~~
alloyed
Absolutely not. As he's said, he's a one-issue candidate: anything else would
be up to whoever the democrats pick for VP.

------
pbreit
Warren or Sanders? That's a non-starter. Those two are outlandish even to this
progressive.

------
anonbanker
He'd never win. But he's got my vote anyway.

------
wahsd
Sanders / Lessig 2016 ?

Warren in the Senate. Sounds like the formation of a dream team

~~~
toufka
That combination of sincerity and intellect would put our nation two decades
ahead of its own time.

------
kuni-toko-tachi
The problem isn't money in politics, the problem is government. Nearly all
taxes that don't fund a very limited set of government functions should be
completely eliminated.

Your tax money is what gives politicians power. Leftists want more government,
more taxes, and centralization of power into the hands of even fewer
politicians and yet are puzzled - dumbfounded even - why things are "working".
Bernie Sanders is a Hugo Chavez, a fool.

~~~
maxlybbert
Yeah, really the only way to get money out of politics is to make political
contributions less profitable. And, frankly, I don't see that happening.

