@Google: Lawrence Lessig: Republic, Lost: How Money Corrupts Congress—and a Plan to Stop It

[ThePrisoner6]

Sadly, I think that small dollar contributions would only mean the return of old-timey corruption.

[gstrummer]

How big is our defict?  $5 trillion?? Err... "5 Trillion Like"

[GrowMap]

Unbelievable. He is seriously proposing GOOGLE as the solution to the corruption? Google is systematically taking away our choices, favoring big brands and destroying small business. We have foolishly made ourselves the product they sell to multi-national corporations.

#1 issue occupy should focus on is this: economic equality; opportunity for ALL; for EVERYONE to have a better standard of living and the minimum basics of life: safe water, healthy food, and shelter. Small business = solution.

[118leslie]

@GrowMap - Absolutely not! If that is what you came away with then you did not listen to the entire video.

[tanio12]

@GrowMap

people make it seem like small businesses are the solution how many small businesses can sustain 20,000-100,000 people . there are some sucess stories with small business but there are plenty more that arent.

[SoundLoudBand]

@abram730 sorry, i dont talk with terrorist

[socialmediaguru]

this moron voted for barak obama enough said!

[Soulforged42]

@socialmediaguru This is exactly the kind of mentality that is part of what is destroying our nation and its political process. Drop the self-destruction "us against them" way of thinking.

[tanio12]

@socialmediaguru

why is he a moron if he had voted republican the problem would still exist. people must understand obama like romney gingrich paul santorium are POLITICIANS. Obama is merely a passenger on the train just like the rest.

[c433z]

It's naive to think this for certain, but what if Obama is waiting to attack the systemic corruption in his 2nd term? The day you win that second term at you are no longer beholden to the campaign contributors that got you there.

It may spell the demise of the future of the Democratic party, but if he is successful, at least he will have steered the future of the country on a less corrupt path, and that is more valuable than preserving the name of what the party USED to stand for.

[TheTopBloke]

Fuck Larry Lessig. He's an egomaniac who has never won a case in his life.

[c433z]

@TheTopBloke Does this mean he has nothing good to say? Does this mean he cannot understand relationships within the economy, lobbying, and politics? This subject has been the main focus of his work for the past 5 years. Derail him on the accuracy and integrity of his work, not based on personal attacks.

[TheTopBloke]

@c433z Yes, it means he has nothing good to say, and you should disregard his commentary altogether. He certainly would not understand relationships within the economy. Lobbying is not hard to understand. I could make coffee at Starbucks for the last five years. Doesn't mean I'm any good at it.

[c433z]

@TheTopBloke Do you disagree with the message? He doesn't really offer much of a solution. What would you suggest? If it's not a hard concept to grasp shouldn't he be able to articulate it well? I'm genuinely interested to hear what you have to say on the topic.

I'd hope you'd make at least a decent coffee after 5 years ;)

[TheTopBloke]

@c433z Quite frankly, I don't listen to him anymore. He loves making speeches, but when you ask him a simple question, he can't respond. He has a cult like following but beyond that I don't see him promoting anything but himself. So to answer your question as directly as I can, I'm not sure what you're referring to when you ask what would I suggest. What would I suggest with respect to what? We have many laws on the books as it is now. SOPA for example, was not needed to take down megaupload.

[c433z]

@TheTopBloke I was assuming you watched the video. How would you suggest going about trying to change how campaign finance is handled? You can look up the methods he describes on wikipedia. The problem is drumming up popular support for such a movement because the majority of US citizens are complacent about the political process.

[TheTopBloke]

@c433z The actions taken so far have been meaningless. They've created complexity that can only be navigated by people and corps with money. PAC's are a perfect example of this. I don't think the Kucinic's proposal to have govt only funding of candidates is viable either. There can be many different candidates from various parties or unaffiliated running. it seems just as messy. I think aside from funding itself, ensuring genuine equal time among candidates in the media is a start.

[c433z]

@TheTopBloke The role of soft money has increased and super PACs allow the donors to be undisclosed. I wouldn't say the actions taken have been in an attempt to return power to the people, rather to the same interests that lobbied for those bills to be passed.

[c433z]

@c433z Why would public funding be messy? You opt in to a limited-contribution fund as opposed to what we already do. Limit the funding to parties instead of individual candidates? Maybe you need to poll a minimum percentage? I'd rather deal with these questions than have the current system as it is.

[TheTopBloke]

@c433z I agree. It's only provided an illusion to pacify the ignorant masses who have little time to educate themselves. I think focusing on equal time as opposed to funding is a better strategy for solving the problem. I envision a legal framework where the candidates are ensured equal time in mainstream media channels. Radio, television, newspapers. Banning political ads like we do alcohol and tobacco ads.

[wulfgarpl]

Wolf PAC

"28th Amendment Corporations are not people. They have none of the Constitutional rights of human beings. Corporations are not allowed to give money to any politician, directly or indirectly. No politician can raise over $100 from any person or entity. All elections must be publicly financed."

support them

[empie6617]

Let us never forget that government is ourselves and not an alien power over us. The ultimate rulers of our democracy are not a President and senators and congressmen and government officials, but the voters of this country.

- Franklin D. Roosevelt

[NewAgeMagazine]

Dear Google,

Please expose everything the government is doing. Please don't listen to them if they ever tell you to remove videos because they are "anti-government" or anything along those lines. Please educate people on what true capitalism is, not the crony capitalism we have today. Please spark a peaceful revolution in the way people think about government and business.

[claudegreengrass81]

@AtGoogleTalks I don't suppose there's a transcript of this? Excellent video. It's a shame, and slightly ironic to see so few people have took the time to watch this

[Dynamite972]

@claudegreengrass81

You will never get most people to spend an hour trying to educate themselves

[claudegreengrass81]

@Dynamite972 agreed, but why is that? Maybe education is no longer valued?

[Dynamite972]

@claudegreengrass81

Because if it isn't a video of a cat or less than 5 minutes you won't get the attention of the majority of people

[lenarita1]

sharing.

[califradmt]

When I file my income tax return, I donate to "presidental election." It had been 1.00 but now is 3.00. Where does this money go? Anyone know?

[Morningrise1986]

0 dislikes. ZERO DISLIKES! When does that ever happen on Youtube? Lessig needs to be listened to!

[jackooboy1]

I still think reforming the way we elect people to office would work as a better first step than trying to limit money, especially when the courts are stacked against us.

[rtellegen]

Excellent analysis. Very inspiring. Let's hope some change will come when more and more people see that people as Lawrence Lessig are right.

[TerrorBlack]

@Mutex50 If you're going to adopt approval voting, why discard it in the general, the most important election of all? (Especially for a system as terrible as plurality)

[Mutex50]

@TerrorBlack The general would only have 2 candidates. The open primary with approval voting would be used to get those candidates.

[bvwRedux]

Money is like water. And in regard to money flows to those in power, or gaining power -- money is like the ocean seeking the beach. Campaign finance reform is utter folly -- though a King may demand that a seawall be built so that his children and only his children may build sand castles, either some storm will wreck the sea wall, or the ocean will build a new beach outside the walls.

Lessig might know better, given his work on Intellectual Property.

[bvwRedux]

When more than 5000 or so adults vote for anything it is mob rule. And pedagogues of all stripes and styles control a mob easily.

[TGonzo92]

I challenge anyone to watch this entire thing and confidently say that they didn't benefit from this. This was more informative than any college course or TED talk I've ever experienced.

[3449pingpro]

Finally someone identifying the ROOT. All other issues pale

[classickjr]

I keep thinking this guy is Bill Pullman

[MatroidX]

How does this have fewer than 10k views?!?

Anyways, very good summary of the problem (especially glad it was non-partisan), though I'm still iffy on the likelihood of the proposed solution.

[theottoman786]

Graphics make my head hurt. This video is ADD.....DDDDDDD

[veloboy]

Everybody watch it again.

[6006133]

So we need to hack the root user. That's what I got from the first 4 minutes :)

[tfokeefe]

I had got to a point of being so overwhelmed by the negative reality I live in that I truly did not see a way out. Yes, I would stand up and yell throw the bums out! Term limits! But this man has in the most logical way shown us the way to the answer. I for one, who has never been a activist shall now take action. From a old man who believed he used to live in a lost logical world and did not know where to start ----I now see my next actions ---clearly.

[zoodyswa]

I wonder what Larry would think about replacing congress with jurors. See jurygovernment org. Site says it would end corruption, earmarks, vote bartering, special interest influence, wallstreet influence, and nauseating elections. Says it's all possible under Article 5 of the constitution. and more achievable by a constitutional convention. Take a look.

[chaos1x1doom]

No dislikes, shit.

[piedradelocura]

anti-twinkle @ 35:00 :(

[piedradelocura]

twinkle fingers @ 34:23 !!!!

[krdoug82]

I like the idea Lessig presents of attacking the root of the problem, but the problem he identifies (money in politics) is not the root. The root of the problem is that congress has the power to arbitrarily take property from and restrict the liberty of the citizens of this country. Therefore, capping contributions would only mean that there will be a larger number of lobbists, and majority rules--not justice or individual liberty--will be the pricinciple guiding the actions of government.

[krdoug82]

The constitutional amendment he calls for should be one that eliminates the Federal government’s ability to intervene in the economy. The federal gov’t should not be able to make any decisions about what/how individuals produce or trade. Lobbying would move to the state level, but at least then individuals and businesses would be free to move away from abusive states.

[barrkel]

@krdoug82 government has the power to govern; that attract money. Without taking way the money, the only other way is to take away the government, like you are suggesting. While some libertarian anarchists might like that idea, it is a *pointless* stance in finding *common* ground. You *cannot win* a majority for action from your perspective. Removing the *incentive* is the key. This is the biggest lesson of economics: incentives matter. Money is the incentive; it should be the people.

[callmeray]

@krdoug82 - You don't "cap" contributions, you "eliminate" them.

[seasch71]

Greatest Video on Youtube. A must see for anyone interested in politics in the USA.

[AKansan63]

@seasch71 - I disagree. This is a video EVERY American should see, not just those interested in politics. Our Republic is LOST. If we don't want it to be gone forever, we better do something, NOW!

[atatassault]

@AKansan63 This needs to be the top comment. I'm going to show this video to every single person I know.

[y0nd3r]

Lol @26:07.....As swipe fees....audience didn't get it.

[Mutex50]

Money in politics is a problem, but the biggest problem is our voting system that forces us to vote for the lesser of two evils. We need to have an open primary with approval voting and let the top two face off in the general election.

[HebaruSan]

@Mutex50 But it's the money that ensures that the two choices are both evils. A two-party system would be fine if either or both of those parties presented good options in line with the will of the population. The same forces that now narrow down our choices in the party primaries today could easily operate in one big open primary. Not to mention the legalized bribery of campaign contributions that influence elected officials (of whatever party) between their elections.

[Mutex50]

@HebaruSan Changing the voting system state by state is going to be much easier than amending the Constitution. Also, changing the voting system will help us amend the constitution. The reason money is a problem in politics is because it makes the Republicans and Democrats the default candidates and you have to vote for one of them to prevent the other one from getting elected.

If we do a constitutional convention now, the corporations will just co-opt it and make it worst.

[HebaruSan]

@Mutex50 I agree with you that Lessig is bizarrely optimistic about the outcome of a constitutional convention; if anything, the state legislatures are even more bought and paid for than Congress at this point, and they'd probably be nominating the delegates if it even got started at all (which it won't). Let's just say that isn't my "preferred remedy."

What would stop big money from corrupting the Greens and all the other third parties down the line, in your vision?

[Mutex50]

@HebaruSan If they do sell out to corporate interests, they can more easily be defeated in the next election. I'll send you a message detailing what I think out strategy should be. The comments won't give me enough characters.

[siwasher67]

@HebaruSan Bizarrely optimistic? He himself calls his idea insane. I'm sure he'd welcome your better ideas if you can make a case.

[siwasher67]

@Mutex50 The top 2 will just be the best at getting corporate funds to by ad time to convince you to vote for them. It's the undue influence of corporate money that's the more fundamental problem.

[Mutex50]

@siwasher67 I'm sure money would still have an influence, but I doubt it would always be the top two funded candidates that would make it into the general. After you change the voting system it would be so much more easier to organize. I think you can change the voting system first and then get the CFR amendment passed a lot easier and quicker than just starting with getting the amendment passed. At least try to do it concurrently.

[umijin]

@Mutex50 but we can't change that w/o removing money from politics.

[Mutex50]

@umijin You've got that the other way around. It is so much easier to change a voting system in a state than to get a constitutional amendment passed.

[umijin]

@Mutex50 You didn't watch the video carefully. You have no chance of voting in congresspersons that will exact change, because they are all bought and sold. You probably have no chance in getting states to change their voting systems for the same reasons. You do have a chance at getting a state to demand a constitutional convention, b/c local level politicians have to depend more on the people to get elected.

[LovingKindness1000]

@Mutex50 The voting system wouldn't be the same if money was out of politics, thus money in politics IS the problem. "Campaign finance doesn't need reform. It needs elimination."

[StitchGaijin]

@Mutex50 - Not true... No one "forces" you to do anything... & I'm not trying to be cliche. This is the essence of true freedom. Don't choose what is put in front of you. Choose what is right. You don't like the choices; don't vote. Simple as that. Don't be a part of the institutionalized masses. A real profound statement would be if there was no majority. Or even if NO ONE voted... for anyone... think about what either of those would imply. I'm not talking about anarchy. Far from it...

[Mutex50]

@StitchGaijin It isn't about not liking a candidate. It is about the fear that the worst candidate that you don't like will get elected. Also, nobody is going to lose sleep over you not voting. It will not send a message. The only way to send a message is to vote for a third party, but that also has an effect of helping to elect the worst of two evils.

[StitchGaijin]

@Mutex50 Flawed thinking will not change anything. By promoting & advocating this, then it will always be a flawed system that you've chosen to NOT make any iota of a difference in. Actually listen to what he's saying. What you've stated proves the point that the popular vote doesn't hold any merit (& really doesn't matter; it's an illusion that it holds any weight). My single non-vote would just be lost in the ocean of your polluted votes. An unpolluted ocean would send a clearer message.

[Mutex50]

@StitchGaijin Not voting doesn't tell them anything. The best way to send a message is to vote for a third party.

Yes, technically we aren't forced to vote a certain way, but if one candidate is absolutely horrific and another candidate is also horrific, but a little better, there is a strong incentive to vote for the guy who is just a little better.

Our system of government in general is extremely chaotic and unorganized.

[homunq]

@Mutex50 Lessig's response to the voting reform ? at 47:10 is counterproductive. He says voting system reform is necessary, but must come after finance reform. I think he's wrong; breaking the two-party lock on setting the agenda would do more to help finance reform than vice versa. But even if he's right about the most feasible order, he should be helping promote, not suppress, dialogue on other necessary reforms. (Walk and chew) is 3 times faster than (decide order, then walk, then chew).

[TheSandrastevens]

@Mutex50 I agree having A democracy with only 2 party's to chose from is ridiculous especially when they refuse to pass any laws or regulations just because they want to play gotcha. That the country is going through a depression people can't find work lose their house , have nothing to eat and are dying of curable disease because they don't have or can not afford medical insurance,parents loose their children in two wars that have been going on for 10 years. Is apparently not urgent business

[rsaathoff]

@Mutex50 how about anyone with affiliations witht he CFR, Trilateral Commission or a Secret Society is ineligible. Bribes or campaign contributions are illegal. Public access channel for poilitcal messages.

[vexgodglove]

@Mutex50 Even if we implement open primaries, the final two will still be susceptible to the problems addressed in this talk. Without this level of campaign finance reform, all you are doing changing which candidates are being corrupted.

[Mutex50]

@vexgodglove A different voting system can allow us to vote for candidates that will not be corrupted. Also, it will greatly speed up our ability to get a constitutional amendment passed to get CFR.

[vexgodglove]

@Mutex50 The potential for corruption is directly tied to campaign finance, not to the method of voting. As I said, without serious campaign finance reform, altering the voting process will not affect corruption. You can already vote for candidates who will not be corrupted, you just have no idea who those people are (if they even exist), open primaries would not change that. Any candidate who wants to get reelected still gets drawn into the same game, whether there are two parties or a hundred.

[Mutex50]

@vexgodglove Yes, technically we can already vote for candidates who are not corrupt, but there is a huge disincentive to do so. Vote splitting makes it very improbable that he will win and wasting your vote can easily help the candidate you hate most to get elected. Also, I am arguing for open primaries with APPROVAL VOTING – not open primaries on its own.

[Mutex50]

@vexgodglove Also, you can accomplish CFR faster if you do voting reform first and then CFR. You are arguing for prioritizing going to the store before finding the car keys. If you find the car keys and take the car instead of walking, you can get to the store faster.

[wealthychef]

@Mutex50 Better than open primaries is Instant Runoff Voting, aka Ranked Choice Voting. This allows you to express your choices honestly in a winner-take-all election without having to make a Faustian bargain.

[Mutex50]

@wealthychef IRV is better than plurality, but it has a lot of problems.

1) It is a pain in the ass to implement and tally results. Approval voting can use the same technology we currently use.

2) The results are unintuitive. For a good comparison of the voting systems go to zesty(dot)ca(slash)voting(slas­h)sim

3) A lot of people don't understand IRV when it is explained to them. The concept seems simple to me, but for some reason a lot of people just can't grasp it.

[wealthychef]

@Mutex50 Implementation is not an issue. It's not like people are sitting in a room with an abacus. We have computers and scan cards now. The big advantage of IRV is that the instructions are simple: rank your candidates from favorite to least favorite. It's not hard to understand when you watch the results, and I have no idea why you think the results are "unintuitive." A lot of people don't understand that we have three branches of government and that the President doesn't write laws...

[Mutex50]

@wealthychef You can look at the website I linked to to see why it is unintuitive. Also SJVoter shows some of the problems of IRV on his channel. He is a douche bag propagandist, but he does make SOME good points.

[wealthychef]

@Mutex50 I looked at the website and I disagree that it is unintuitive. You can look at the IRV website to see why it's intuitive. LOL. What points of SJVoter do you find most persuasive?

[Mutex50]

@weathychef I don't know how you can see the irrational behavior of those graphs and not see that it is not intuitive. IRV reduces the spoiler effect a bit, but it still doesn't eliminate it. In the early rounds it is easier for the less viable candidates to knock off the more viable candidates that stand a chance against the candidate you don't like. Also, voting against your own candidate can help him win in some situations.

[wealthychef]

@Mutex50 Hmm, interesting. I'm having trouble understanding those graphs...

[wealthychef]

@wealthychef What does it even mean to map candidates onto a two dimensional plot? What are the axes? I'm definitely not understanding it. The graphs are far more unintuitive than any effect that I can see yet.

[wealthychef]

@wealthychef I think I understand the graphs now, and my objection to them would be to say that they assume that each candidate and each voter have a "position" which is modeled as being a point in 1D space. Their relationship therefore is 2D. I can see the attractiveness of this approach to academicians, as it makes the math tractable and makes it possible to plot things and wave your arms about. However, I don't think this fairly models anything real. I need to think more about it.

[16691232]

@Mutex50 I'm on Lessig's side, I disagree and think solving the money problem would lead to solving the primary problem. I think you're striking at a branch here.