We the People, and the Republic we must reclaim | Lawrence Lessig

All of that, plus tax software companies, such as Intuit lobbying against simplifying the tax code. link And once again we reach the conclusion that corporate lobbying and donations are the "root of all evil" in American politics, and everything is broken because of it. Larry Lessig has been right all along when he said this needs to be fixed before anything else [1]. Because once this is fixed, everything else should be a lot easier and a lot more in tune with what the People want [2]. [1] ▶ this video [2] link It's just so easy and so cheap for corporations to buy votes right now. Why wouldn't they do it, when the upside is billions of dollars and there's no penalty for it? They can literally buy a vote with a few thousand dollars "donation". Set a limit of $200 (maybe $500 for presidential candidates) political donation per year per person and imprison (6-36 months) anyone who dares to do it any other way, fast and furious, no matter who he is, wealthy billionaire or former president. It's the only way to escape this corruption in the system. Also, I think the U.S. would need a special agency whose sole mission is to look for this type of corruption. In this case, "mission creep" and the purpose of maintaining their jobs would work in the People's favor. The more the agency would do (catch corrupt donors or politicians), the more it could justify its existence. Similar agencies have seen a lot of success in Europe, trying to catch corrupt politicians.

The root cause of this is the influence of money on our politicians. Symptoms include laws written for the rich and the corporations rather than for the people, causing the continued growth of inequality and a drag on the economy. Support Lawrence Lessig in his efforts to solve this root problem! ▶ this video He departs on the second of his New Hampshire Rebellion walks on Sunday.

I already do :( I think, it's in best interest of the people in power, that the campaign is so costly. When you look at the presidents of the last decades (I don't know to much US history, to go back to far), they all where already millionaires when they where elected. But you should better watch this one, I don't know if you know Lessig (I think, he is a real patriot): ▶ this video In our country, the campaigns are less costly, but until anybody comes to the top of any major party, he must be inwardly corrupted already. I see it this way, that nearly no current leading politician in our country is not already totally corrupted by money and power. I think, Mark Twain had this one right, but I don't think, that it had to be exported, it seems to lay inside the human kind. I think it was already visible in the first republics like Rome. Maybe we are in a similar position today as in Caesars or even Neros time. You should know, that some years ago, even in Europe, rich people started building places to live for millionaires -- apart and secure from the "plebs". They provide for times, when the 99% will no longer hold still. Of course, millionaires are only third class "rich" people in our world. Second class are billionaires.

In 2016, just 400 American families were the source of 50% of all election money that year. If your "candidate" is going to "rein in big tech," how the hell are they supposed to raise money from them? And if they aren't going to do that, where will that money go? Your views seem to be rather ... idealistic. This TED lecture[0] is only 18 minutes long and it offers rather a chilling perspective on any sensible reform. [0] ▶ this video

Here is a Harvard law professor and tech darling (of creative commons), Lawrence Lessig, rebutting your overall point. ▶ this video Summary: It feels like we have a government that governs on behalf of those with money because those with money vote first in the fundraising "election" that happens even before a primary election. More money is more votes in the "election" that mattes the most. Those with money get to filter candidates first. edit: Just because money comes from an individual and not directly from a corporation doesn't mean it isn't a pro-corporate/"corporate" contribution.

Political movement related to this study: link A Ted Talk by Harvard Law professor and Copyright Law reform advocate Lawrence Lessig on the topic: ▶ this video

I'd argue that Congress has not done a good job of anything (at least not anything that the majority of Americans would care about) because our motivations are not aligned. That's the point of this campaign - to remove the motivation for Congress to act in ways that our not in the best interest of the general public, by removing the financial incentives for them to do so. This TED talk from Lessig gives more background: ▶ this video

That is a valid question. Good speech about it: Lawrence Lessig: We the People, and the Republic we must reclaim: ▶ this video

Is it a crime for a hungry man to steal bread? None of your proposed solutions would address his needs. America's government is so corrupt it is no longer democratic. Watch this video: ▶ this video

There is very little outright corruption in Congress. Special interests exert most of the influence through campaign contributions that are publicly disclosed. Larry Lessig has a great book on this: link . And here is the link to his TED talk on the same topic: ▶ this video

> the candidate who spent less won. That is entirely unsubstantiated. There is no reasonable way to measure this and any measurements taken are inherently political. I am amenable to the idea of that being true for official spending, but unless the twitter purchase, for example, were tabulated, or spending on our American "pravda" (Truth social which was clearly influenced by link ), I would be extremely suspicious of those numbers. > so at least at presidential level, there is neither apathy, complacency, or the ability to buy elections. Again, I completely disagree, and so does Harvard Law Professor Lawrence Lessig, who argues that it is extremely hard to win a primary without fundraising, and fundraising is structurally an election where money counts as votes, and therefore nearly all candidates who make it to the primary have already been filtered through by those with money: ▶ this video

I keep saying that what we are currently living through is a surprisingly accurate reflection of how democracy began. In the city state of Athens, all free men had the vote. The definition of "free man" just happened to exclude approximately 97% of the population. Our governments have since figured out that you can merrily hand out the privilege, as long you remain in control of what is allowed to be put on the vote in the first place. I'm not alone with my view, btw. Lessig has made the same point in his "Country of Lesters" talk.[0,1] 0: link (overview, writeup) 1: ▶ this video (recorded talk)