

Lessig would step down after fixing campaign finance corruption - getrdone
https://lessigforpresident.com/

======
ed
Lessig's proposal, per [https://lessigforpresident.com/the-
act/](https://lessigforpresident.com/the-act/):

    
    
        1. Make election day a national holiday
    
        2. Implement ranked-choice voting[1], and draw districts for equal
           representation[2]
    
        3. Give voters campaign donation vouchers and limit lobbying, described as a
           hybrid between the Government By the People Act[3] and the American
           Anti-Corruption Act[4]
    

[1] [http://www.fairvote.org/reforms/instant-runoff-
voting/](http://www.fairvote.org/reforms/instant-runoff-voting/)

[2] [http://www.fairvote.org/reforms/fair-representation-
voting/](http://www.fairvote.org/reforms/fair-representation-voting/)

[3]
[https://sarbanes.house.gov/bythepeople](https://sarbanes.house.gov/bythepeople)

[4] [http://anticorruptionact.org](http://anticorruptionact.org)

~~~
getrdone
Larry puts forth a number of very wise points. I think we need to go further
by eliminating PACSs altogether and that limited donations may come from named
individuals _and_ must go to a specific candidate _only_ ; neither
organizations, issue PACs, super PACs nor "personhood" corporations.

------
omginternets
I find it honestly surprising that people can both lament the state of
campaign corruption in the U.S., and then dismiss someone who displays -- by
all appearances -- a genuine intent on fixing the problem.

I swear I see comments endorsing constitutional amendments to this effect
_daily_ on HN. You can question the likelihood that Lessig gets elected, but
you certainly can't fault his program.

A program doesn't have to fix _everything_ in order to be a significant step
in the right direction. The only conclusion I can draw from this is that you
people don't actually want to fix anything.

~~~
getrdone
Amen (and I'm an atheist). Two sources probably: I think people get
acclimatized to the situation and fear big improvements because it involves
change, and change is scary. And also, there is an amount of jealousy and
resentment directed towards anyone whom may have a real shot at successfully
fixing things because they won't get credit in history books. (This last one
is also commonly experienced by anyone whom becomes much more successful in
whatever they're doing. It sucks, but friends and peers fear being left
behind.)

------
getrdone
Larry listened to Aaron Schwartz'es clear insight... the political operating
system must be fixed _before_ any other meaningful issue reforms can be
discussed.

His singular focus on that specific, hard issue combined with a pledge to step
down after fixing just that is interesting, in a George Washington-revivalist
manner. I think he needs a lot of coordinated "muscle" from broad support in
order to push this massive "boulder" up and over the "mountain" of
institutionalized resistance (the rich, lobbyists and entrenched politicians
will fight this one to the death, so he needs to prepare to fight World Wars
III, IV & V).

------
Ankaios
I think it's great that Lessig is interested in running, but I think the
intent of being a single-issue "referendum president" is, to be polite,
misguided.

It's not actually the choice of the president whether a single issue is the
_only_ issue, regardless of how much he might want that to be the case. If
elected, he would have to run the executive branch, which means he would need
to select a cabinet, unless he is planning on just hanging on to the previous
guy's choices until he has finished his quest. We're going to judge him on his
perceived ability to do that, as well as everything else a president has to
do.

Further, if he is perceived as competent enough to do all that, why would I
vote to hire him as chief executive of the nation when he has stated he is
going to quit soon after he is elected? His running mate will have be chosen
far more carefully than normal. Also, why would I be willing to leave the
decision about the _replacement_ vice president to a bunch of people in
Washington? By pledging to quit, he is effectively eliminating our direct
voice on half of the ticket.

Mr. Lessig, if you want a chance at my vote you have to run for real and
commit to serving your full term to the best of your abilities. I hope you
do—I think you are up to the task.

~~~
omginternets
I'm not sure I follow. If Lessig were to step down and hand power over to the
vice president, then couldn't the vice president freely appoint a new cabinet?

Even if we got stuck with a crappy cabinet for four years, it would be
survivable (see 2000 - 2004) and the good that would come out of fixing
campaign corruption would be immeasurable.

>Further, if he is perceived as competent enough to do all that, why would I
vote to hire him as chief executive of the nation when he has stated he is
going to quit soon after he is elected?

Because he doesn't think he is competent to run the country; he thinks he's
competent to fix a specific problem.

I just found out about this guy 10 minutes ago, but I very much welcome this
kind of discourse and honestly wish there were more of it.

~~~
Ankaios

       If Lessig were to step down and hand power over
       to the vice president, then couldn't the vice
       president freely appoint a new cabinet?
    

Lessig would have to govern until he finished enacting his agenda. That could
take years. Plus, selecting a good cabinet would off-load distractions from
him, allowing him to focus more on his core objectives.

    
    
      Even if we got stuck with a crappy cabinet for
      four years, it would be survivable
    

A "survivable" term isn't the threshold I personally use when voting for
candidates. :)

~~~
omginternets
>A "survivable" term isn't the criteria I personally use for choosing
presidents. :)

That's fair enough, but I would counter that:

1\. We've been settling for "survivable" terms for the past 10 years

2\. Some people will take a hit for the greater good. I really wish you would
be willing to do that too. That said, maybe you don't think Lessig's agenda
would be serving the greater good, in which case I'd be interested in knowing
why.

~~~
Ankaios
I think his agenda is great. (I might quibble about things like ranked-choice
versus approval voting, but that's immaterial for the moment.) I just think
he's going to have to govern while trying to achieve that agenda, and I
suspect he can do that successfully, so I'd like him to run for real rather
than planning to quit after he's done.

------
snarfy
It's a great idea, but it would take two terms just to make that proposal
stick. It's going to take a lot more work to take money out of politics.
Signing some papers and walking away won't work.

~~~
djur
Some people call it the "Green Lantern theory of presidential power" \-- that
for one person with sufficient purity of intent and force of will, anything is
possible. But the President doesn't get a magic ring of cosmic power, and the
American political system was specifically _designed_ to prevent rapid,
radical change without comprehensive and unified support from all three
branches.

~~~
getrdone
Larry Lessig, George Washington and all other figures are/were human beings
like the rest of us; it's only other people which catapult them onto
pedestals. I think we should take stock in the coming socio-political fight
for social justice, which needs a strong and wise torchbearer, so that it does
not devolve into a French Revolution, but instead an insurrection in the
spirit of democracy's promise of continual revolution. Because without a
equality functioning across-the-board, history has shown time-and-time-again,
that people inevitably seek country justice if city justice doesn't work for
them. (It's not "right," but it's human nature.)

------
djur
What motivation would Congress possibly have to cooperate with an
intentionally lame-duck President? The President is not able to unilaterally
push through legislation, and the idea of using a presidential election as a
referendum is deeply flawed.

However, his platform is admirable and I hope he draws more attention to
electoral and campaign finance reform. Perhaps this movement could be
redirected toward a constitutional amendment? That would be both more feasible
and more effective (since it wouldn't be vulnerable to repeal at any time).

~~~
geofft
I've always understood his position as implying that he'll pocket-veto
anything else that passes his desk, and nothing interesting (like, oh, passing
a budget) can get through today's Congress with a supermajority. It's in
Congress's interest to get the stupid reform bill passed as quickly as
possible so that a normal president can sign the rest of their bills.
(Presumably this would be most effectively paired with an establishment
candidate as VP who intends to run for re-election, so that he/she is
answerable to the party bosses as usual.) And they have pretty good political
cover for voting in favor of these bills: they can tell their constituents
that it's all the fault of this ridiculous Harvard academic that the outgroup
voted for.

Rolling Stone did an interview where they asked him what happens if something
goes wrong in the timeframe between when he takes office and when Congress
realizes they should just pass the bills:
[http://www.rollingstone.com/politics/news/meet-the-
president...](http://www.rollingstone.com/politics/news/meet-the-presidential-
hopeful-whod-quit-after-signing-a-single-law-20150819)

 _RS: But what happens if you get elected president, and then — before your
big bill gets passed — Iran goes crazy? Who, then, deals with the ayatollahs,
or ISIS, or whatever the crisis is?_

 _LL: The person who is elected the president. That person has to convince the
public that, in the case of something extraordinary, they could act as a kind
of leader that the nation needs at the time of crisis._

 _RS: You 're saying you've got the qualifications to make those kinds of
decisions in the interim?_

 _LL: Absolutely. If I 'm not qualified to be that person, I shouldn't be
president._

I trust Lessig to be a reasonable-enough person that in the event of war or
some other national emergency, he'll suspend his pocket-veto policy, and
either act like a real president or resign unconditionally and let the VP take
over. I agree with him that if you don't trust him to do that, you shouldn't
vote for him.

~~~
djur
This is all assuming that Congress wouldn't (with some justification, frankly)
view the maneuver as an unconscionable assault on the constitutional
separation of powers and adopt a total war stance against Lessig. I have no
trouble believing that it would be easier to get a veto-proof majority of
Congress to pass enough funding to keep the government running than it would
to get a simple majority to pass Lessig's platform.

You'd end up with only bills that represented the bipartisan "center" in DC,
which means lots of money for the security state and cuts for social services.
No appointed offices that would require congressional approval would be filled
(and would Lessig even appoint anyone?). It could very well be the biggest
constitutional crisis since the Civil War, if things went badly.

------
logn
I don't see what's to stop special-interest-funded candidates from using their
already existing money to advertise to the people and get as many _My Voice
Tax Credits_ from them as possible (if only to dry up money for the other
candidates).

And I also think the Anti-Corruption Act he's promoting will eventually be
gutted by the Supreme Court, as they've done to similar laws in the past:
[https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/First_Amendment_to_the_United_...](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/First_Amendment_to_the_United_States_Constitution#Campaign_finance)

A Constitutional amendment would at least trump the Supreme Court. I wish
Lessig would just insist on getting Congress to pass an Amendment he wants.
But the states are already on their way, bypassing Congress:
[https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wolf_PAC#Progress_in_particula...](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wolf_PAC#Progress_in_particular_states)

I like the other solutions Lessig is promoting, especially FairVote.

------
onewaystreet
Lessig is the embodiment of the great ignorance that a lot of people in tech
have for politics. This comment is going to come off as nothing more than an
ad hominem, but it would take multiple paragraphs to fully explain everything
that is misguided about this plan.

~~~
omginternets
Then please write the several paragraphs, else:

1\. Your comment serves no purpose

2\. I might be tempted to vote for the guy out of ignorance

