<?xml version="1.0" encoding="utf-8"?>

<feed xmlns="http://www.w3.org/2005/Atom" xml:lang="en">
  <title>Lawrence Lessig</title>
  <link href="http://huffingtonpost.com/author/index.php?author=lawrence-lessig"/>
  <updated>2013-05-21T19:16:13-04:00</updated>
  <author>
    <name>Lawrence Lessig</name>
  </author>
  <id xmlns="http://www.w3.org/2005/Atom">http://www.huffingtonpost.com/author/index.php?author=lawrence-lessig</id>
  <rights>Copyright 2008, HuffingtonPost.com, Inc.</rights>
  <subtitle>HuffingtonPost Blogger Feed for Lawrence Lessig</subtitle>
  <generator>Good old fashioned elbow grease.</generator>

<entry>
    <title>&quot;They Know We Know It.&quot; Get Politicians On The Record About Corruption</title>
    <link rel="alternate" type="text/html" href="http://www.huffingtonpost.com/lawrence-lessig/campaign-money_b_2687669.html"/>
    <id>tag:www.huffingtonpost.com,2013:/theblog//3.2687669</id>
    <published>2013-02-14T12:46:18-05:00</published>
    <updated>2013-04-16T05:12:01-04:00</updated>
    <summary><![CDATA[

"There's another challenge that we must address and it is the corrupting force of the vast sums of money necessary to run...]]></summary>
    <author>
        <name>Lawrence Lessig</name>
        <uri>http://www.huffingtonpost.com/lawrence-lessig/</uri>
    </author>
    <content type="html" xml:lang="en" xml:base="http://www.huffingtonpost.com/lawrence-lessig/"><![CDATA[<script type="text/javascript" src="https://spshared.5min.com/Scripts/PlayerSeed.js?playList=517659460&amp;height=411&amp;width=570&amp;sid=577&amp;origin=undefined&amp;relatedMode=2&amp;relatedBottomHeight=60&amp;companionPos=&amp;hasCompanion=false&amp;autoStart=false&amp;colorPallet=%23FFEB00&amp;videoControlDisplayColor=%23191919&amp;shuffle=0&amp;continuous=true"></script><br />
<br />
"There's another challenge that we must address and it is the corrupting force of the vast sums of money necessary to run for office. The unending chase for money I believe threatens to steal our democracy itself."<br />
<br />
No, that's not a quote from the President Obama's State of the Union address. But it is from a recent speech by the newest member of his cabinet: John Kerry.<br />
<br />
We both were struck by Kerry's candidness and eloquence on the matter of money in politics as he gave his farewell address to the Senate, where he has spent the last 28 years of his life.<br />
<br />
We were so struck, in fact, that we at Rootstrikers and Fund For The Republic - and our good friends at HuffPost, including Arianna - need your help.<br />
<br />
We're calling it the <strong>On the Record Project</strong>.<br />
<br />
We need to get every member of the House and Senate on the record about the force "that threatens to steal our democracy itself."<br />
<br />
We can no longer afford to have our public officials remain silent on this crucial issue. They should no longer be allowed to duck it, or to act is if there is no mandate to fix the problem.<br />
<br />
In fact, the mandate couldn't be clearer. Year after year, poll after poll has shown that we, the people, are sickened by the way in which money corrodes and corrupts our democracy. In a Gallup poll last July, 87% of us said that reducing government corruption should be an "extremely important" or "very important" priority for the president. It ranked second on a list a dozen - from improving education to strengthening national security -- just below job creation (which came in #1, at 92%).<br />
<br />
Corruption. It's a strong word. But that's how vast majorities of us see it, and now Secretary of State John Kerry confirmed that we're not nuts: "I've used the word 'corrupting' and I want to be very clear about it. I mean by it not the corruption of individuals but a corruption of a system itself that all of us are forced to participate in against our will: The alliance of money and the interests that it represents, the access that it affords to those who have it at the expense of those who don't, the agenda that it changes or sets by virtue of its power is steadily silencing the voice of the vast majority of Americans who have a much harder time competing or who can't compete at all."<br />
<br />
We Americans are not the type of people who have ever allowed our collective voice to be steadily silenced. Other countries may have a higher tolerance for such muting of the masses, but not us. And it's time to speak up, and to get every one of our elected representatives to speak up, too. Do they agree or disagree with 87% of us? Do they think John Kerry's reflections, informed by three decades of service on Capitol Hill, are accurate or not?<br />
<br />
To help manage the On the Record Project, HuffPost and Rootstrikers have set up a system for all of us to help get every member of Congress on the record.<br />
<br />
It's simple enough, but will require some guts and persistence to pull it off.<br />
<br />
<br />
<strong>Here's what we need you to do: </strong> <br />
<br />
<strong>Go to a gathering that your representative or senator is attending and ask him/her: </strong><br />
<br />
<blockquote>In his farewell speech, John Kerry said that the "unending chase for money" in politics has led to the "corruption" of the political system. He said everyone knows it, but nothing is done. Yet the Supreme Court, with its Citizens United decision, argued that money doesn't corrupt. What is your view on this? Do you believe that the "unending chase for money" has corrupted politics?</blockquote><br />
<br />
<strong>Record their answers to both questions on video.</strong> Use your cell phone or whatever device you want and then post it with the other videos so that we have an exact record of what they said.<br />
<br />
<strong>Upload your audio</strong> to <a href="http://soundcloud.com/upload" target="_hplink">SoundCloud</a> and tag it #campaignmoney<br />
<br />
<strong>Or, send us video clips</strong> through <a href="http://www.sendspace.com" target="_hplink">SendSpace</a>.<br />
<br />
Or, <strong>send files to us directly</strong> at openreporting@huffingtonpost.com<br />
<br />
The goal of this project is not merely to get every one of them on the record, but then to use what they say to help propel them to act - to reform the system -- or to hold them accountable when they either fail to act or fail to acknowledge the crisis of corruption.<br />
<br />
Acknowledgement of an illness is the gateway to wellness. As it is with alcoholics, the first step to sobriety is publicly admitting the addiction.<br />
<br />
And on that front, once again John Kerry was very clear: "We should not resign ourselves, Mr. President, to a distorted system that corrodes our democracy, and this is what is contributing to the justifiable anger of the American people. They know it. They know we know it. And yet nothing happens. The truth requires that we call the corrosion of money in politics what it is - it is a form of corruption and it muzzles more Americans than it empowers, and it is an imbalance that the world has taught us can only sow the seeds of unrest."<br />
<br />
Indeed, they do know it. And they do know that we know it. And, yet, nothing is happening in Washington.<br />
<br />
At least, until now.<br />
<br />
Let's get every politician to take a stand - either for the status quo or against it -- so that we know who's on what side. Doing so will help all 87% of us democracy-loving Americans draw the battle lines for the future.<br />
<br />
Please, join the cause. Become a part of the On The Record Project now. <br />
<br />
<em>Questions on this project? Let us know in the comments below. We will update <a href="http://corruptionismyissue.org/hp/sorter.php" target="_hplink">this scorecard</a> with your responses. <br />
</em><br />
<br />
<HH--LIVEBLOG--1446--HH><br />
<br />
<iframe src="http://corruptionismyissue.org/hp/sorter.php" width="600px" height="400px"></iframe>]]></content>
    <link href="http://i.huffpost.com/gen/992271/thumbs/s-CAMPAIGN-MONEY-mini.jpg" type="image/jpeg" rel="enclosure"/>
</entry>

<entry>
    <title>Prosecutor as Bully</title>
    <link rel="alternate" type="text/html" href="http://www.huffingtonpost.com/lawrence-lessig/aaron-swartz-suicide_b_2467079.html"/>
    <id>tag:www.huffingtonpost.com,2013:/theblog//3.2467079</id>
    <published>2013-01-13T10:01:44-05:00</published>
    <updated>2013-03-15T05:12:01-04:00</updated>
    <summary><![CDATA[The billions of snippets of sadness and bewilderment spinning across the Net confirm who this amazing boy Aaron Swartz was to all of us. It angers me that he did what he did. But if we're going to learn from this, we can't let slide what brought him here.]]></summary>
    <author>
        <name>Lawrence Lessig</name>
        <uri>http://www.huffingtonpost.com/lawrence-lessig/</uri>
    </author>
    <content type="html" xml:lang="en" xml:base="http://www.huffingtonpost.com/lawrence-lessig/"><![CDATA[<em>(Some will say this is not the time. I disagree. This is the time when every mixed emotion needs to find voice.)</em><br />
<br />
Since Aaron Swartz's arrest in January, 2011, I have known more about the events that began this spiral than I have wanted to know. Aaron consulted me as a friend and lawyer. He shared with me what went down and why, and I worked with him to get help. When my obligations to Harvard created a conflict that made it impossible for me to continue as a lawyer, I continued as a friend. Not a good enough friend, no doubt, but nothing was going to draw that friendship into doubt.<br />
<br />
The billions of snippets of sadness and bewilderment spinning across the Net confirm who this amazing boy was to all of us. But as I've read these aches, there's one strain I wish we could resist:<br />
<br />
<strong>Please don't pathologize this story.</strong><br />
<br />
No doubt it is a certain crazy that brings a person as loved as Aaron was loved (and he was surrounded in NY by people who loved him) to do what Aaron did. It angers me that he did what he did. But if we're going to learn from this, we can't let slide what brought him here.<br />
<br />
First, of course, Aaron brought Aaron here. <a href="http://mediafreedom.org/2011/07/larry-lessig-responds-says-swartzs-alleged-actions-crossed-ethical-line/" target="_hplink">As I said when I wrote about the case</a> (when obligations required I say something publicly), <em>if</em> what the government alleged was true -- and I say "if" because I am not revealing what Aaron said to me then -- then what he did was wrong. And if not legally wrong, then at least morally wrong. The causes that Aaron fought for are my causes too. But as much as I respect those who disagree with me about this, these means are not mine.<br />
<br />
But all this shows is that if the government proved its case, some punishment was appropriate. So what was that appropriate punishment? Was Aaron a terrorist? Or a cracker trying to profit from stolen goods? Or was this something completely different?<br />
<br />
Early on, and to its great credit, JSTOR figured "appropriate" out: They declined to pursue their own action against Aaron, and they asked the government to drop its. MIT, to its great shame, was not as clear, and so the prosecutor had the excuse he needed to continue his war against the "criminal" who we who loved him knew as Aaron.<br />
<br />
Here is where we need a better sense of justice, and shame. For the outrageousness in this story is not just Aaron. It is also the absurdity of the prosecutor's behavior. From the beginning, the government worked as hard as it could to characterize what Aaron did in the most extreme and absurd way. The "property" Aaron had "stolen," we were told, was worth "millions of dollars" -- with the hint, and then the suggestion, that his aim must have been to profit from his crime. But anyone who says that there is money to be made in a stash of <em>ACADEMIC ARTICLES</em> is either an idiot or a liar. It was clear what this was not, yet our government continued to push as if it had caught the 9/11 terrorists red-handed.<br />
<br />
Aaron had literally done nothing in his life "to make money." He was fortunate Reddit turned out as it did, but from his work building the RSS standard, to his work architecting Creative Commons, to his work liberating public records, to his work building a free public library, to his work supporting Change Congress/FixCongressFirst/Rootstrikers, and then Demand Progress, Aaron was always and only working for (at least his conception of) the public good. He was brilliant, and funny. A kid genius. A soul, a conscience, the source of a question I have asked myself a million times: What would Aaron think? That person is gone today, driven to the edge by what a decent society would only call bullying. I get wrong. But I also get proportionality. And if you don't get both, you don't deserve to have the power of the United States government behind you.<br />
<br />
For remember, we live in a world where the architects of the financial crisis regularly dine at the White House -- and where even those brought to "justice" never even have to admit any wrongdoing, let alone be labeled "felons."<br />
<br />
In that world, the question this government needs to answer is why it was so necessary that Aaron Swartz be labeled a "felon." For in the 18 months of negotiations, that was what he was not willing to accept, and so that was the reason he was facing a million-dollar trial in April -- his wealth bled dry, yet unable to appeal openly to us for the financial help he needed to fund his defense, at least without risking the ire of a district court judge. And so as wrong and misguided and fucking sad as this is, I get how the prospect of this fight, defenseless, made it make sense to this brilliant but troubled boy to end it.<br />
<br />
<a href="http://www.techdirt.com/articles/20120917/17393320412/us-government-ups-felony-count-jstoraaron-swartz-case-four-to-thirteen.shtml" target="_hplink">Fifty years in jail</a>, charges our government. Somehow, we need to get beyond the "I'm right so I'm right to nuke you" ethics that dominates our time. That begins with one word: shame.<br />
<br />
One word, and endless tears.<br />
<br />
<em>This piece first appeared on <a href="http://lessig.tumblr.com/post/40347463044/prosecutor-as-bully" target="_hplink">Lawrence Lessig's blog</a>.</em><br />
<br />
<strong>Related on The Huffington Post:</strong><br />
<br />
<script type="text/javascript"<br />
src="http://pshared.5min.com/Scripts/PlayerSeed.js?playList=517641702&amp;heigh<br />
t=411&amp;width=570&amp;sid=577&amp;videoGroupID=148829&amp;relatedNumOfResults=100&amp;related<br />
Mode=2&amp;relatedBottomHeight=60&amp;companionPos=&amp;hasCompanion=false&amp;autoStart=fa<br />
lse&amp;colorPallet=%23CC0000&amp;vcdBgColor=%2323191919&amp;shuffle=0&amp;continuous=true"<br />
></script>]]></content>
    <link href="http://i.huffpost.com/gen/938742/thumbs/s-AARON-SWARTZ-mini.jpg" type="image/jpeg" rel="enclosure"/>
</entry>

<entry>
    <title>What the Hell Is Being a Moderator For?</title>
    <link rel="alternate" type="text/html" href="http://www.huffingtonpost.com/lawrence-lessig/politics-corruption_b_1997446.html"/>
    <id>tag:www.huffingtonpost.com,2012:/theblog//3.1997446</id>
    <published>2012-10-21T12:00:18-04:00</published>
    <updated>2012-12-21T05:12:01-05:00</updated>
    <summary><![CDATA[Neither candidate for president is addressing one of the top 10 issues that Americans believe should be a priority for the next president -- more important than terrorism, the deficit, schools or social security.]]></summary>
    <author>
        <name>Lawrence Lessig</name>
        <uri>http://www.huffingtonpost.com/lawrence-lessig/</uri>
    </author>
    <content type="html" xml:lang="en" xml:base="http://www.huffingtonpost.com/lawrence-lessig/"><![CDATA[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. <br />
<br />
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 <a href="http://www.scribd.com/doc/110684705/Gallup-Issue-Research-1996-2012" target="_hplink">here</a> 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.<br />
 <br />
Until this year. Of the <a href="http://www.gallup.com/poll/156347/americans-next-president-prioritize-jobs-corruption.aspx" target="_hplink">top 10 issues that Gallup identified</a>, 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." <br />
<br />
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. <br />
<br />
Why? <br />
<br />
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 <a href="http://ggl.to/wikipedia+citizens+united" target="_hplink"><em>Citizens United</em></a>: 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.<br />
<br />
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 <a href="http://www.theatlantic.com/politics/archive/2012/09/obamas-chance-to-keep-his-reform-promise/262009/" target="_hplink">"take up that fight" to change the system</a>, 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.<br />
<br />
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? <br />
<br />
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 <a href="http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/League_of_Women_Voters#Debates" target="_hplink">why the League of Women Voters</a> 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, <a href="http://www.wired.com/wired/archive/12.08/view.html?pg=5" target="_hplink">everyone understands the consequences of making a candidate uncomfortable</a>. There's always a next time, unless, of course, you make things really bad for the candidate this time. <br />
<br />
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. <br />
<br />
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.<br />
<br />
In Robert Caro's <a href="http://www.amazon.com/gp/product/0679405070/ref=pd_lpo_k2_dp_sr_1?pf_rd_p=486539851&amp;pf_rd_s=lpo-top-stripe-1&amp;pf_rd_t=201&amp;pf_rd_i=0679729453&amp;pf_rd_m=ATVPDKIKX0DER&amp;pf_rd_r=1N4C0J9A6KMCP1P6PH5Z" target="_hplink">latest Johnson biography</a>, 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: <br />
<br />
<blockquote><p>[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.</p><br />
<p>"Well, what the hell's the presidency for?" Lyndon Johnson replied.</p><br />
</blockquote><br />
<br />
The rest, as they say, is history.  <br />
<br />
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?<br />
<br />
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 <em>America</em> cares about. Moderator <em>laissez faire</em> won't get us there. A real political journalist just might.]]></content>
    <link href="http://i.huffpost.com/gen/820890/thumbs/s-OBAMA-ROMNEY-POVERTY-mini.jpg" type="image/jpeg" rel="enclosure"/>
</entry>

<entry>
    <title>The No Lobbying Pledge</title>
    <link rel="alternate" type="text/html" href="http://www.huffingtonpost.com/lawrence-lessig/the-no-lobbying-pledge_b_1875082.html"/>
    <id>tag:www.huffingtonpost.com,2012:/theblog//3.1875082</id>
    <published>2012-09-11T16:10:58-04:00</published>
    <updated>2012-11-11T05:12:01-05:00</updated>
    <summary><![CDATA[What reformers need is a Congress without 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.]]></summary>
    <author>
        <name>Lawrence Lessig</name>
        <uri>http://www.huffingtonpost.com/lawrence-lessig/</uri>
    </author>
    <content type="html" xml:lang="en" xml:base="http://www.huffingtonpost.com/lawrence-lessig/"><![CDATA[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. <br />
<br />
Here's some background to make this campaign understandable: <br />
<br />
The most chilling passage in Jack Abramoff's incredible book, <a href="http://www.amazon.com/gp/product/1936488442/ref=as_li_ss_tl?ie=UTF8&amp;camp=1789&amp;creative=390957&amp;creativeASIN=1936488442&amp;linkCode=as2&amp;tag=codev2-20" target="_hplink"><em>Capitol Punishment</em></a> (2011) comes about a third of the way in. As Abramoff writes: <br />
<br />
<blockquote>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. </blockquote><br />
<br />
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 <a href="http://www.republicreport.org/2012/stop-backdoor-bribery-lette/" target="_hplink">1,452 percent </a> (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.<br />
<br />
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.<br />
<br />
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? <br />
<br />
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.  <br />
<br />
Enter the <a href="http://bit.ly/RQf7Zk" target="_hplink">No Lobbying Pledge</a>.<br />
<br />
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. <br />
<br />
This pledge is not like the ordinary pledge that candidates are now routinely asked to make. Many good souls -- <a href="http://bit.ly/RQfq6x" target="_hplink">No Labels, in particular</a> -- 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. <br />
<br />
Our challenge now is to build a movement to get candidates to take the pledge. Today, we announce the first: <a href="http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Jim_Cooper" target="_hplink">Representative Jim Cooper</a>, 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 <a href="http://link.brightcove.com/services/player/bcpid59085832001?bclid=58806604001&amp;bctid=776348552001" target="_hplink">committed reformer</a> of Congress, we could imagine no better member to be the first to take the pledge. <br />
<br />
Now we just need 800 more. <a href="http://www.rootstrikers.org/the_no_lobbying_pledge" target="_hplink">At our site</a>, we have provided the infrastructure for fueling <a href="http://www.rootstrikers.org/the_no_lobbying_pledge#pledge" target="_hplink">twitter campaigns</a> to get members to sign. <br />
<br />
But what's really needed are <a href="http://www.rootstrikers.org/contact_your_candidate" target="_hplink">citizens to show up </a> 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.<br />
<br />
<a href="http://www.rootstrikers.org/the_no_lobbying_pledge" target="_hplink">So join us</a>. 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. <br />
<br />
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.]]></content>
    <link href="http://i.huffpost.com/gen/750541/thumbs/s-MONEY-POLITICS-BOOKS-mini.jpg" type="image/jpeg" rel="enclosure"/>
</entry>

<entry>
    <title>The Great Promise of Super-PACs</title>
    <link rel="alternate" type="text/html" href="http://www.huffingtonpost.com/lawrence-lessig/the-great-promise-of-supe_b_1160215.html"/>
    <id>tag:www.huffingtonpost.com,2011:/theblog//3.1160215</id>
    <published>2011-12-20T09:30:04-05:00</published>
    <updated>2012-02-19T05:12:01-05:00</updated>
    <summary><![CDATA[Until the rise of super-PACs, the system favored the incumbents. Now the incumbents work for the super-PACs. It is a demeaning and demoralizing life for people who like to think highly of themselves and the institution they serve.]]></summary>
    <author>
        <name>Lawrence Lessig</name>
        <uri>http://www.huffingtonpost.com/lawrence-lessig/</uri>
    </author>
    <content type="html" xml:lang="en" xml:base="http://www.huffingtonpost.com/lawrence-lessig/"><![CDATA[There's a certain terror to the life of a Member of Congress that, with all their pomp and pretense, it's easy to miss. This terror is new. No one yet knows precisely how to tame it. And it may ultimately prove to be the single most important motivator to real campaign finance reform. <br />
<br />
The terror runs something like this: An incumbent goes into an election, fairly confident about her prospects. Money in the bank, polling in the low sixties, an opponent with little chance to close the gap. Then 30 days out, a super-PAC drops half a million dollars in the district, funding attack ads, and ads that support the challenger. Very quickly, an easy reelection is thrown into doubt.<br />
<br />
Incumbents are beginning to recognize this pattern. The most terrifying bit -- in the short term, at least -- is how they are reacting. They can't hope to hold in reserve enough money to respond to such an attack -- funders don't contribute to million dollar surpluses; they send their money to candidates on the edge. Nor can they turn to their largest contributors after the attack begins -- by definition, those contributors have maxed out. There's nothing more they can do. <br />
<br />
So the incumbent has but one obvious insurance policy: super-PACs on her own side. To secure the protection the incumbent needs, the incumbent cozies up to the large but independent funders on his or her side, so that if a bomb gets dropped, there's a ready supply of bombs to support the incumbent. <br />
<br />
And how do you cozy up to a super-PAC, to guarantee they'll defend you -- "independently," of course -- if terror raises its ugly head? By behaving in the way that super-PAC demands. "We'd love to be able to help you, Senator, but our charter requires that we only support candidates who get 80% or better on our score card." Incumbents thus work hard for good (super-PAC) grades. And like superpowers in a cold war, allegiance is secured with a simple understanding of defense. <br />
<br />
This dynamic was first explained to me by former Senator <a href="http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Evan_Bayh" target="_hplink">Evan Bayh</a> (D-IN). Bayh was on a panel about campaign finance reform; he was responding to a skeptic's claim that there was no real evidence that money mattered to a Senator's decisions. I left that panel convinced that there was little an incumbent could do to maintain her independence. <br />
<br />
Then I met Congressman <a href="http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/John_Sarbanes" target="_hplink">John Sarbanes</a>.<br />
<br />
Sarbanes is a three-term Democrat from Maryland. He is the son of <a href="http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Paul_Sarbanes" target="_hplink">the former Senator</a>, who began his career in the same district. Over a glass of water at a local restaurant, Sarbanes explained to me his idea for super-PAC insurance -- an idea that required no compromise of principle, and indeed, one that would only strengthen the incumbent's support. <br />
<br />
The key is small dollar contributors. If Sarbanes had an army of small dollar supporters, then he'd have someone to turn to if he were attacked. Someone who has given $50 in the past is likely to be able to give $50 again, especially in an emergency, especially to protect "her congressman" against an "outsider's attack." <br />
<br />
But it's not easy to gather small dollar contributors. Indeed, for congressional races, it almost never makes sense. A single large contributor is worth 100 $50 contributors. Most incumbents thus find it easier to raise from the top down. It takes real discipline to raise from the bottom up.<br />
<br />
So Sarbanes has <a href="http://www.johnsarbanes.com/grassroots-donor/public-financing" target="_hplink">done something that possibly no one else in the history of politics has ever done</a>: He has formally and voluntarily tied himself to a funding structure that forces him to raise small dollar contributions. Sarbanes has established two "challenge funds," both now fully funded. The first fund (worth $500,000) can be drawn upon only when Sarbanes recruits 1,000 small contributors. The second (with $250,000) can be drawn upon only when those contributors have given at least $50,000. Until he hits the 1,000 contributor, and $50,0000 in contributions mark, he can't touch the $750,000 in the funds. But once he does, his campaign will be fully funded -- with super-PAC insurance bundled in for free.<br />
<br />
Not many in Congress are likely to follow Sarbanes' lead. His ingenious idea takes real work. But if envy for his independence among Members grows, there is an obviously easier way to get the same protection: proposals like the <a href="http://fairelectionsnow.org/" target="_hplink">Fair Elections Now Act</a>, that would amplify the value of small contributions, or as I've proposed, a <a href="http://www.nytimes.com/2011/11/17/opinion/in-campaign-financing-more-money-can-beat-big-money.html" target="_hplink">simple tax rebate in the form of a democracy voucher</a> of $50 per voter, that would flood the field with small dollar contributions. Or even better, <a href="http://lessig.tumblr.com/post/14010963493/proposed-28th-amendment-beta-v-9" target="_hplink">a constitutional amendment</a> that limited the ability of super-PACs to drop bombs in the first place. Or even better still, a mix of both small dollar funding legislation and a limit on super-PAC power. Any of these reforms would give Members for free what Sarbanes is working overtime to earn: the independence necessary to be free to lead.<br />
<br />
And thus may this innovation turn out to be a story with hope. For the current system is not stable. Until the rise of super-PACs, the system favored the incumbents. Now the incumbents work for the super-PACs. It is a demeaning and demoralizing life for people who like to think highly of themselves and the institution they serve. At some point they will get that they can fix this. Soon after that point, they just might. <br />
<br />
Meanwhile, you could support this movement for a Congress "Free to Lead" (as <a href="http://buddyroemer2012.ning.com/" target="_hplink">Buddy Roemer puts it</a>) by <a href="http://www.johnsarbanes.com/grassroots-donor/public-financing" target="_hplink">joining Sarbanes' army</a>. Or at least by <a href="http://www.johnsarbanes.com/contact" target="_hplink">thanking him</a> for his idea. ]]></content>
</entry>

<entry>
    <title>One More Try: The Rules Versus the Game</title>
    <link rel="alternate" type="text/html" href="http://www.huffingtonpost.com/lawrence-lessig/one-more-try-the-rules-ve_b_1036013.html"/>
    <id>tag:www.huffingtonpost.com,2011:/theblog//3.1036013</id>
    <published>2011-10-27T15:57:20-04:00</published>
    <updated>2011-12-27T05:12:02-05:00</updated>
    <summary><![CDATA[I believe that corruption hurts both the (populist) Left and the (populist) Right. And because I believe it hurts both of us populists, I believe there is a reason to try to engage with people I otherwise disagree with.]]></summary>
    <author>
        <name>Lawrence Lessig</name>
        <uri>http://www.huffingtonpost.com/lawrence-lessig/</uri>
    </author>
    <content type="html" xml:lang="en" xml:base="http://www.huffingtonpost.com/lawrence-lessig/"><![CDATA[[<a href="http://www.huffingtonpost.com/dave-zirin" target="_hplink">Dave Zirin</a> has <a href="http://www.thenation.com/blog/164228/re-reply-prof-lawrence-lessig-where-does-change-actually-come" target="_hplink">replied</a> to my <a href="http://www.huffingtonpost.com/lawrence-lessig/a-reply-to-the-edgeofspor_b_1032583.html" target="_hplink">response</a>. This issue about strategy is critical and important. Let me try one more time.]<br />
<br />
<a href="http://www.thenation.com/blog/164228/re-reply-prof-lawrence-lessig-where-does-change-actually-come" target="_hplink">Still missing the point</a>. Let me try, Mr. @EdgeofSports, one last time. This time with a sports metaphor:<br />
<br />
Imagine you're a player with the Chicago Bears. You're on the field, about to begin a game with the Green Bay Packers. Just before kick-off, someone races onto the field screaming: "Guys, please, can't we all just get along? Enough of this fighting. Let's just shake hands and go get a beer."<br />
<br />
<em>I am not that guy</em>, Dave. That's not my argument (now stated <a href="http://www.huffingtonpost.com/lawrence-lessig/occupywallst-v2-what-cros_b_1000227.html" target="_hplink">again</a> and <a href="http://www.huffingtonpost.com/lawrence-lessig/something-more-than-polar_b_1030476.html" target="_hplink">again</a> and <a href="http://www.huffingtonpost.com/lawrence-lessig/a-reply-to-the-edgeofspor_b_1032583.html" target="_hplink">again</a>). Instead, I'm the guy saying something like: "Hey, Bears and Packers: Can we have a conversation about whether a tackler should be allowed to use his helmet when making a tackle?" Or translated for the non-sports-readers (which, before my friend Mark Snyderman gave me these examples, I, too, would have been), I'm the guy saying: we need to have a conversation about the rules of the game, because they are not working for any of us. <br />
<br />
Or once again: Imagine you're the pitcher for the Boston Red Sox (as most of the kids (boys and girls) where I come from do, at least once a day). You're on the pitching mound, about to throw against the Yankees' star batter. You look up, and some guy is flying a plane pulling a banner that says: "Look, I know some of us are Sox fans, and others of us are Yankees fans, but we're <em>all baseball fans</em>. Let's just stop all this fighting, link arms, and learn to work together." <br />
<br />
<em>I am not that idiot either</em>, Dave. Instead, and again, I am your teammate (no doubt, I'd be in the dugout and you'd be pitching, but still), asking whether it might make sense to sit down with the Yankees (and others in our league) and rethink the instant replay rule. Baseball, I believe, should be governed by honest umpires, not HD cameras. <br />
<br />
In both cases, I'm the guy saying we should think about the rules. I'm not trying to say we should dampen the competitive passion of our own team. Or deny the justice in our own cause. Or to betray our own objectives. But competition happens on a field; that field is governed by rules; those rules only get changed if everyone (or at least the 99%) on the field agrees. So I  think we need to find a way to talk to the 99% -- Liberals, Conservatives, Moderates, Libertarians -- about whether and how those rules should be changed.  <br />
<br />
Now as crazy as it is to race onto a football field and urge a kumbayah moment, or to buzz Fenway Park to urge inter-team love, it is just as crazy to label as disloyal a team member who is arguing that we need to sit down to talk about the rules of the game. It may be disloyal to argue that you shouldn't fight hard against the other team. It is likely stupid, as a coach, to start a game with a lecture about how decent and hard working the other side is. But it is neither stupid nor disloyal to push for a respectful conversation with the other side when you believe the rules of the game are not working -- for you and for the other side. <br />
<br />
And <em>that</em> is my belief. I believe this system is corrupt. I believe that corruption hurts both the (populist) Left and the (populist) Right. And because I believe it hurts both of us populists, I believe there is a reason to try to engage with people I otherwise disagree with to see whether we can, first, agree about this corruption, and second, take steps to reform it. I believe that 99% of us -- Liberal and Conservative, Leftist and Libertarians, Moderates, Tea Party supporters, Coffee Party Activists, much of the ACLU -- could actually agree about the corruption that is this system, and agree to work together to change it. <br />
<br />
It won't be easy to get that agreement. It isn't obvious how to even facilitate the conversation. But a good first step <em>in that project</em> would be to resolve not to call (again, <a href="http://abcnews.go.com/blogs/politics/2010/07/the-naacp-the-tea-party-and-the-question-of-racism/" target="_hplink">baselessly</a>, but put that aside) the other side "racists." Instead, that conversation begins by acknowledging our differences, and accepting our different loyalties, yet working with respect to engage people we disagree with about the possibility that there might be something more fundamental -- like changing the rules of the game -- that differences notwithstanding, we might agree upon.<br />
 <br />
I get that respect is not your style. I doubt our politics are much different, but I do lean more to Gandhi ("<a href="http://www.lettersofnote.com/2010/07/what-makes-you-think-i-hate-british.html" target="_hplink">What makes you think I hate the British?</a>") than to Malcolm X. But you rally hate not only of your opponents, but also of your allies, with prose that reek of condescension ("put down the high school citizenship textbook"), attack with falseness ("Please don't tell me to love the Tea Party" -- where have I <em>ever</em> told anyone to support, let alone, <em>love</em> the Tea Party?) and repeatedly demand that I just go home ("please get out of the way"; "don't be surprised if theres no US. Just 'you.'"). I get that makes things simpler -- the Tea Party is racist, and I'm ignorant -- but in my experience, I've not actually seen that style do much to convince anyone of anything. <br />
<br />
At the very least, you've not shown me how hate gets you to 67 Senators, or 75% of the States. Dr. King didn't need to change the Constitution. We do. And nothing in what I've said suggests anyone should "wait" to fight for anything of substance: please, coach, rally the team to fight for all the things you and I believe in. What I've said, <a href="http://www.huffingtonpost.com/lawrence-lessig/occupywallst-v2-what-cros_b_1000227.html" target="_hplink">again</a> and <a href="http://www.huffingtonpost.com/lawrence-lessig/something-more-than-polar_b_1030476.html" target="_hplink">again</a> and <a href="http://www.huffingtonpost.com/lawrence-lessig/a-reply-to-the-edgeofspor_b_1032583.html" target="_hplink">again</a>, is that as well as fighting for what we believe, we need to identify what <em>we all</em> believe, and use that common belief to end the corruption that blocks us, and them, from getting what we, all of us, want. ]]></content>
    <link href="http://i.huffpost.com/gen/383849/thumbs/s-OCCUPY-WALL-STREET-POLL-mini.jpg" type="image/jpeg" rel="enclosure"/>
</entry>

<entry>
    <title>A Reply to the @EdgeofSports: Who Exactly Are the 99%?</title>
    <link rel="alternate" type="text/html" href="http://www.huffingtonpost.com/lawrence-lessig/a-reply-to-the-edgeofspor_b_1032583.html"/>
    <id>tag:www.huffingtonpost.com,2011:/theblog//3.1032583</id>
    <published>2011-10-26T10:14:27-04:00</published>
    <updated>2011-12-26T05:12:01-05:00</updated>
    <summary><![CDATA[Those who see the Occupy movement as a movement of the Left need to tell me how calling people you disagree with "racists" is going to get us the super majority it takes to make any fundamental changes in this country, under this broken political system.]]></summary>
    <author>
        <name>Lawrence Lessig</name>
        <uri>http://www.huffingtonpost.com/lawrence-lessig/</uri>
    </author>
    <content type="html" xml:lang="en" xml:base="http://www.huffingtonpost.com/lawrence-lessig/"><![CDATA[Sometime-<a href="http://www.huffingtonpost.com/dave-zirin" target="_hplink">HuffPost blogger</a>, and <em>Nation</em> contributor Dave Zirin has written a brilliant barn-raising <a href="http://www.thenation.com/blog/164188/memo-lawrence-lessig-tea-party-no-answer-occupy-usa#comment-894771" target="_hplink">response</a> to my <a href="http://www.huffingtonpost.com/lawrence-lessig/something-more-than-polar_b_1030476.html" target="_hplink">last HuffPost piece</a>. Please read all of it, but here's the bit I want call out. Zirin states: "But by going to Occupy sites and arguing for a Tea Party alliance, Professor Lessig, to put it mildly, isn't helping."<br />
<br />
Helping what, exactly, Dave? <br />
<br />
Helping the Left rally the Left? Agreed. That isn't my aim. The #Occupy movements are doing that quite well on their own. As a Liberal, I celebrate that rally. <br />
<br />
Helping the Left lead a movement for real reform? You tell me how your path does that better. <br />
<br />
Here's the fact about America: It takes an insanely large majority to make any fundamental change. You want <I>Citizens United</i> reversed, it is going to take 75% of states to do it. You want public funding of public elections? It's going to take 67 Senators to get it. You want to end the corruption that makes it impossible to get any of the things liberals push? It's going to take a broad based movement that cuts across factions, whether right (as in correct) or Right (as in not Left).<br />
<br />
So you tell me how calling people you disagree with "racists" (which you predicated of the Tea Party because of the behavior of some of its members, even though an ABC analysis has <a href="http://abcnews.go.com/blogs/politics/2010/07/the-naacp-the-tea-party-and-the-question-of-racism/">concluded</a> that views on race "are not significant predictors of support for the Tea Party movement") is going to get us to 38 states? Or 67 Senators? Or 80% of the public's support, which any fundamental change is going to require? Explain how chest-thumping self-righteousness about how hateful "they" are "is helping" that? <br />
<br />
Maybe you don't think such fundamental reform is needed, Dave. Maybe you think the political system is just fine. That the poor do perfectly well in a system where the rich fund political campaigns. That the middle class can hold its own in a world where corporations are free to spend endlessly to push the most ridiculous bullshit as "public" policy.<br />
<br />
But if you think that, you're from Mars. I'm from Earth. And here on Earth, here in America, our political system is f*cked, and your self-righteous indignation "is not helping" us to get it fixed. <br />
<br />
It's great to rally the 99%. It is a relief to have such a clear and powerful slogan. But explain this, because I'm a lawyer, and not so great with numbers: Gallup's <a href="http://www.gallup.com/poll/148745/Political-Ideology-Stable-Conservatives-Leading.aspx">latest poll</a> finds 41% of Americans who call themselves "conservative." 36% call themselves "moderate." Liberals account for 21%. In a <a href="http://www.gallup.com/poll/147308/Negative-Views-Tea-Party-Rise-New-High.aspx">different poll</a>, Gallup finds 30% of Americans who "support" the Tea Party. <br />
<br />
So who exactly are we not allowed to work with, Dave? 30% of America? 41% of America? All but 21% of America? And when you exclude 30%, or 41%, or 79% of Americans, how exactly are you left with 99%? <br />
<br />
Talk about wanting to have it "both ways"! How can you claim to speak for 99% but refuse to talk to 30%? (And just to be clear: the 30% of Americans who support the Tea Party are not the 1% "superrich." I checked. With a calculator.)<br />
<br />
And finally as to one of the commentators on Dave's essay who finds me "poisonous," and said I said: "OWS needs to drop the 'We are the 99%' slogan because it might hurt the feelings of the rich." What I said was not that the movement should give up the slogan 99% because it offended. I said it should instead talk about the 99.95%. That's the percentage of Americans who did not max out in giving in the last Congressional election. That is the percentage that becomes invisible in the money-feeding-fest that is DC. <br />
<br />
So if you really want to rally the 99%, you might begin by identifying those things that 99% might actually agree about. That the 30% of Americans who call themselves "supporters" of the Tea Party are racists is not a statement likely to garner the support of at least that 30%. (And again, as ABC found, it's not even true). <br />
<br />
On the other hand, 99% of America should be perfectly willing to agree that a system in which the top 1% -- or better, .05% -- have more power to direct public policy than do the 99% or 99.95% is wrong. And must be changed. Before this nation can again call itself a democracy (for those on the Left) or a Republic (for those on the Right). This "Republic," by which the Framers meant a "representative democracy," by which they intended a body "dependent upon the People ALONE," is not. <br />
<br />
That, too, must change. Meaning, in addition to all the things we Liberals want, we must change that as well. And my view is that if we changed that corruption first, we might actually find it a bit easier to get those other things too. ]]></content>
</entry>

<entry>
    <title>Something More Than Polarization</title>
    <link rel="alternate" type="text/html" href="http://www.huffingtonpost.com/lawrence-lessig/something-more-than-polar_b_1030476.html"/>
    <id>tag:www.huffingtonpost.com,2011:/theblog//3.1030476</id>
    <published>2011-10-25T11:00:30-04:00</published>
    <updated>2011-12-25T05:12:01-05:00</updated>
    <summary><![CDATA[We can't afford to simply indulge the passion of our differences. Not anymore. The challenges we face as a nation are just too great. It is time for us to practice a politics that doesn't fit the business model of Fox v. MSNBC.]]></summary>
    <author>
        <name>Lawrence Lessig</name>
        <uri>http://www.huffingtonpost.com/lawrence-lessig/</uri>
    </author>
    <content type="html" xml:lang="en" xml:base="http://www.huffingtonpost.com/lawrence-lessig/"><![CDATA[At the end of September, I helped organize a <a href="http://conconcon.org" target="_hplink">conference</a> at Harvard about the idea of calling a(n Article V) constitutional convention. The event was co-hosted by the Tea Party Patriots. And although that organization has not endorsed a convention, there are many conservatives and libertarians who do support such a call. The conference was designed to explore the possibility, and to demonstrate that people from the Left (my friends) and that people from the Right (the Tea Party Patriots, and some of my friends) could discuss these issues like decent souls do.<br />
<br />
At the opening session, Tea Party Patriot co-founder Mark Meckler gave by far <a href="http://vimeo.com/31046042" targ )et="_hplink">the most impressive speech of the event</a>. In it, he condemned the business model of hate. "The politicians profit," Meckler told us, "when we are inflamed against each other." It was an inspiring charge to launch our two day conference, and it set the tone for an extraordinary and productive weekend. <br />
<br />
Dial forward one month: A few days ago I received an email from the Tea Party Patriots. The aim of the missive was to insist that the #Occupy movement was not the Tea Party. The #Occupiers, the letter stated, were "America-hating anarchists who want to take their anger out on ordinary, productive citizens." And then immediately after that charge, the letter had a link in bold: "Please make an urgent online contribution of $15, $20, $25, $50, $100 or whatever you can afford to Tea Party Patriots right away."<br />
<br />
This same dynamic happens the other way round. <br />
<br />
On Saturday I was wandering through the #OccupySeattle protest. I checked my email, and someone had forwarded a link to a tweet about a speech at the #OccupyChicago event. David Zirin, a writer for the wonderful, and left-wing, <a href="http://www.thenation.com/authors/dave-zirin" target="_hplink">The Nation</a> (and sometimes, for <a href="http://huff.to/qchgX2" target="_hplink">HuffPo</a>), was leading a teach-in. He was also leading the audience in a chorus of boos about an idea that <a href="http://citizensintervention.com/lessig-occupy-dc" target="_hplink">I had advanced</a> at a teach-in at #OccupyKSt earlier that week. The tweet quoted Zirin saying "I can tell by your boos you agree with me that that's horseshit." Shortly afterwards, there were echos in the twitter-verse about my "dumb idea." <br />
<br />
Here was <a href="http://www.huffingtonpost.com/lawrence-lessig/a-letter-to-the-occupiers_b_1007459.html" target="_hplink">my "dumb idea"</a>: At the @OccupyKSt teach-in, I told the audience that they should hold firm to their liberal views. That I did not believe in compromising one's values. That liberals had compromised enough. <br />
<br />
But that if the #Occupy movements are to have any long term effect, they need to recognize the diversity that is this Nation, and to reach out to others whose beliefs they don't share. That the movement needs to find the common ground between the populists on the Right and the populists on the Left. And that in that common ground lies the only potential for real reform.  "You may or may not believe in capitalism," I told the #Occupiers, "but no one believes in crony capitalism, and crony capitalism is precisely the corruption that is our Congress." So build two lists of demands, I said later at that event: One of what "We believe." One of what "We ALL believe." And let that second list then found a movement that will restore this Republic. <br />
<br />
That was my "horseshit," as Zirin tagged it. And as he tweeted me in a followup, "Given the Tea Party's politics, I don't think you can have it both ways." <br />
<br />
"I'm not having 'it' both ways," I responded. "There are two 'its.'" And "If you can't rec[ognize the] diversity of US, [you are] not US."<br />
<br />
"If you champion tea party alliances," Zirin retorted, with the almost irresistible snarkiness of Twitter,  "don't be surprised if theres no US. Just 'you.'" <br />
<br />
I'm a fan of The Nation. I wish more people would read it.  And better, <a href="http://bit.ly/uaJLxy" target="_hplink">subscribe to it</a>. I hope it succeeds in seeding the spread of activism on the Left. I hope we on the Left can once again find the courage to call ourselves  "Liberals" and be proud of it. The Nation is a constant argument for that courage. <br />
<br />
But I increasingly think that we all -- on the Left and the Right -- need to carry around two hats. One hat should say, "Working for my side." The other should say, "Working for U.S." Both vocations are noble and fair. But they are different. It is completely legitimate for the Tea Party to rally its troops. It is the nature of modern organizing that you rally to raise money. But rallying Americans to the Right is different from rallying Americans to fix the corruption that is this government: one speaks to some of us; the other speaks to all of us. And if anyone in the Tea Party movement believes their values or ideas are going to get 80% of Americans to unite, they're deluded, or worse. <br />
<br />
The same is true on the Left. I love the #Occupy rallies. I wish we on the Left had more of their energy to get our side off the couch and to the polls. I wish we had 10,000 teach-ins across the Nation, in living rooms as well as with #occupiers. But if some on our side think that a rhetoric rejecting free markets and demanding socialized banks (in the Left wing version of socialized, not the crony-capitalist version -- socialized risk, privatized benefit -- that they enjoy now) is going to get 80% of Americans to unite, then they are deluded or worse. <br />
<br />
We Americans are diverse. We have different views. Some of us want more government. Some of us want less. Some think the state has done enough to achieve equality. Some think it's not begun to do its job. Some want flat taxes. Or no taxes. Some want progressive taxes. Or at least more taxes. We are different in a million ways, we Americans, but we are all equally Americans. And if you're leading a movement that won't acknowledge that difference (or more frighteningly, that believes that mere rhetoric is going to erase that difference), then you're not looking for fundamental reform. You're looking for a putsch. <br />
<br />
This Nation needs fundamental reform. For that, our constitution requires 75% of states to agree. Thus, if we want real change, we must find those ideas upon which 75% of states can actually agree. <br />
<br />
The challenge for all of us is whether despite our differences, there are those ideas. Whether there is common ground enough to bring about real change. <br />
<br />
That is the question I care most about right now: finding common ground. It may not be there, but I believe it is. I've built organizations, mobilized thousands of volunteers, given hundreds of lectures, and now written a book to argue that it is. But regardless of whether there is, when I or others try to find it, or motivate people to find it, or to talk about it, or to dream for it, we're doing something different from what we do when we wear the "Working for my side" hat. Something different. And IMHO, right now, something critical and important.<br />
<br />
So I get the need for the Tea Party to practice the politics of division. No movement does anything more. But the hard question now is whether we can also play the politics of "e pluribus unum." At Harvard, Meckler told us that the Tea Partiers "are not racists. They are not homophobes. They are your fellow citizens." That is no doubt correct -- even if there are individuals in that movement who are what the movement is not. But I've seen the #Occupiers, in now at least three cities. The same must be said of them: They are not "America-hating anarchists" -- even if there are anarchists among them. "They are our fellow citizens."<br />
<br />
And I get the need to rally souls, as Zirin did, to address the important "issues of race, sexism, LGBT." But it can't be "horseshit," can it?, to also ask us to practice another great liberal value -- tolerance -- at least enough to talk about an alliance with those with whom we disagree. It can't be betrayal to ask whether despite our having few common ends, we might indeed have a common enemy. <br />
<br />
Almost 225 years ago, seventy-four men huddled in a stuffy hall in Philadelphia. They met in secret and did much more than was planned when their meeting was called: they crafted a new constitution. Our constitution. <br />
<br />
We today think of those 74 delegates as all the same: white men, who dressed the same, all coming from essentially the same class. But they were very different. There were men in that room who believed in slavery. There were men in that room who believed slavery was the moral abomination of their time. <br />
<br />
Yet they bracketed those differences long enough to craft a Republic within which differences could be worked out. It took too long to get to the right answer about slavery. But there was ground enough in their new government to work through differences enough to save this nation.<br />
<br />
Whatever the differences are between the Tea Party and the #occupiers, they are not as profound or as important as the difference between slave holders and abolitionists. And whatever the challenges we face today, they are not as great or difficult as the challenge of crafting a whole new form of government. <br />
<br />
We need the courage to practice what they did. We need to put aside the business model of hate, and focus on the common ground of possibility. Americans, whether Left or Right, have lost faith in this government. Americans, whether Left or Right, believe this Congress is bought. We need a movement that can say, "whatever else we might disagree about, we all agree that this corruption must end."<br />
<br />
For we can't afford to simply indulge the passion of our differences. Not anymore. The challenges we face as a Nation are just too great. It is time for us to practice a politics that doesn't fit the business model of Fox v. MSNBC, of The Nation v. National Review, of the Tea Party v. the gaggle of Left-leaning organizations that would claim the #Occupiers. It might not pay, it might not drive ad revenues, it might not rally members: but sometimes those goals are just not the most important. ]]></content>
</entry>

<entry>
    <title>A Letter to the #Occup(iers): The Principle of Non-Contradiction</title>
    <link rel="alternate" type="text/html" href="http://www.huffingtonpost.com/lawrence-lessig/a-letter-to-the-occupiers_b_1007459.html"/>
    <id>tag:www.huffingtonpost.com,2011:/theblog//3.1007459</id>
    <published>2011-10-12T15:03:19-04:00</published>
    <updated>2011-10-31T12:26:51-04:00</updated>
    <summary><![CDATA[There is no liberal, or libertarian, or conservative who should defend the corruption or our political system.]]></summary>
    <author>
        <name>Lawrence Lessig</name>
        <uri>http://www.huffingtonpost.com/lawrence-lessig/</uri>
    </author>
    <content type="html" xml:lang="en" xml:base="http://www.huffingtonpost.com/lawrence-lessig/"><![CDATA[Like a fever, revolutions come in waves. And if this is a revolution, then it broke first on November 4, 2008, with the election of Barack Obama, second, on February 19, 2009, with the <a href="http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=bEZB4taSEoA" target="_hplink">explosion of anger by Rick Santelli,</a> giving birth to the Tea Party, and third, on September 10, 2011 with the #Occupy movements that are now spreading across the United States.  <br />
<br />
The souls in these movements must now decide whether this third peak will have any meaningful effect -- whether it will unite a radically divided America, and bring about real change, or whether it will be boxed up by a polarized media, labeled in predictable ways, and sent off to the dust bins of cultural history. <br />
<br />
In the Civil Rights Movement, Dr. Martin Luther King, Jr., championed a strategy of non-violence: that in the face of state sponsored and tolerated aggression, the strongest response was a promise not to respond in kind. <br />
<br />
In this movement, we need a similar strategy. Of course a commitment to non-violence. But also a commitment to <em>non-contradiction</em>:  We need to build and define this movement not by contradicting the loudest and clearest anger on the Right, but instead, by finding the common ground in our demands for reform. <br />
<br />
So when <a href="http://www.thenewamerican.com/usnews/politics/9344-republicans-bash-federal-reserve-laugh-with-not-at-ron-paul" target="_hplink">Ron Paul criticizes</a> the "Wall Street bailouts," and attacks government support for "special businesses" with special access, we should say, "that's right, Congressman Paul." Bailouts for the rich is not the American way. <br />
<br />
And when <a href="http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=bEZB4taSEoA" target="_hplink">Rick Santelli launches a Tea Party movement</a>, by attacking the government's subsidies "to the losers," we should ask in reply, what about the subsidies "to the winners" -- to the banks who engineered the dumbest form of socialism ever invented by man: socialized risk with privatized benefits. What, we should ask Mr. Santelli, about that subsidy? <br />
<br />
Or when Republican Senator Richard Shelby <a href="http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/36744012/ns/meet_the_press/t/meet-press-transcript-april/" target="_hplink">tells NBC's Meet the Press</a> that the message in bank reform "should be, unambiguously, that nothing's too big to fail," we should say that's right, Senator, and it's about time our Congress recognized it. <br />
<br />
Or when Sarah <a href="http://dailycaller.com/2011/09/15/sarah-palin-general-electric-is-poster-child-of-crony-capitalism/" target="_hplink">Palin calls GE</a> the "poster child of crony capitalism," we should say "Amen, Mamma Grisly": For whether or not we are all believers in "capitalism," we should all be opponents of "crony capitalism," the form of capitalism that is increasingly dominating Washington, and that was partly responsible for the catastrophe on Wall Street in 2008, and hence the catastrophes throughout America since.<br />
<br />
We should practice "non-contradiction," not because we have no differences with the Right. We do. We on the Left, we Liberals, or as some prefer, we Progressives, have fundamental differences with people on the Right. Our vision of that "shining city on the hill" is different from theirs. Our hopes for "We, the People," are more aspirational. More egalitarian. More ideal.<br />
<br />
But even though our substantive views are different, we should recognize that we have not yet convinced a majority of America of at least some of our fundamental views. And that in a democracy, no faction has the right to hold a nation hostage to its extreme views, whether right or not. We should fight in the political system to win support for our Liberal views. But we should reject the idea that protest, or violence, or blackmail are legitimate political techniques for advancing views that have not yet prevailed in a democratic system. <br />
<br />
Instead, we should use the energy and anger of this extraordinary movement to find the common ground that would justify this revolution for all Americans, and not just us. And when we find that common ground, we should scream it, and yell it, and chant it, again, and again, and again. <br />
<br />
For there <em>is</em> a common ground between the anger of the Left and the anger of the Right: That common ground is a political system that does not work. A government that is not responsive, or --  in the words of the Framers, the favorite source of insight for our brothers on the Right -- a government that is not, as <a href="http://www.constitution.org/fed/federa52.htm" target="_hplink">Federalist 52</a> puts it,  "dependent upon the People alone." <br />
<br />
Because this government is not dependent upon "the People alone." This government is dependent upon the Funders of campaigns. 1% of America funds almost 99% of the cost of political campaigns in America. Is it therefore any surprise that the government is responsive first to the needs of that 1%, and not to the 99%? <br />
<br />
This government, we must chant, is corrupt. We can say that clearly and loudly from the Left. They can say that clearly and loudly from the Right. And we then must teach America that this corruption is the core problem -- it is the root problem -- that we as Americans must be fighting. <br />
<br />
There could be no better place to name that root than on Wall Street, New York. For no place in America better symbolizes the sickness that is our government than Wall Street, New York. For it is there that the largest amount of campaign cash of any industry in America was collected; and it was there that that campaign cash was used to buy the policies that created "too big to fail"; and it was there that that campaign cash was used to buy the get-out-of-jail free card, which Obama and the Congress have now given to Wall Street in the form of a promise of no real regulatory change, and an assurance of "forgiveness." <br />
<br />
"Forgiveness" -- not of the mortgages that are now underwater. The foreclosures against them continue. "Forgiveness" -- not even of the sins now confessed by Wall Street bankers, for our President <a href="http://news.firedoglake.com/2011/10/06/obama-on-bank-prosecutions-they-did-nothing-illegal-only-found-loopholes-that-we-worked-to-close/" target="_hplink">has instructed us</a>, no crimes were committed. "Forgiveness" -- just enough to allow candidates once again to race to Wall Street to beg for the funds they need to finance their campaigns. The dinner parties continue. The afternoons at the golf course are the same. It's not personal. It's just business. It is the business of government corrupted. <br />
<br />
There is no liberal, or libertarian, or conservative who should defend these policies. There is no liberal, or libertarian, or conservative who should defend this corruption. The single problem we all should be able to agree about is a political system that has lost is moral foundation: For no American went to war to defend a democracy "dependent upon the Funders alone." No mother sacrificed her son or daughter to the cause of a system that effectively allows the law to be sold to the highest bidder.<br />
<br />
We are Americans, all of us, whether citizens or not. We are Americans, all of us, because we all believe in the ideal of a government responsive to "the People alone." And we all, as Americans, regardless of the diversity of our views, need to stand on this common ground and shout as loudly as we can: End this corruption now. Get the money out of government. Or at least get the special interest money out of government. And put back in its place a government dependent upon, and responsive too, the people. Alone.<br />
<br />
"There are a thousand hacking at the branches of evil" -- Thoreau, 1846, On Walden -- "There are a thousand hacking at the branches of evil to one striking at the root."<br />
<br />
If this fever is to have its effect, if this revolution is to have  any meaning, if this struggle -- and the carnival notwithstanding, it is an obvious struggle to sleep on the streets -- is to have real consequence, then we all, Left and Right, must strike first at that root.<br />
<br />
"It is the duty of youth," <a href="http://thinkexist.com/quotation/the-duty-of-youth-is-to-challenge-corruption/397461.html" target="_hplink">they say Kurt Cobain said</a>, "to challenge corruption." He may have meant a different corruption, if indeed he uttered this poetry too. But whatever he meant, embrace his words. It is your duty to challenge this corruption. And once you have ended it -- once we have restored a government that cares about what its people care about first, and not just its funders -- then let us get back to the hard and important work of convincing our fellow citizens of the right in everything that is left. <br />
]]></content>
    <link href="http://i.huffpost.com/gen/372639/thumbs/s-OCCUPY-SAN-FRANCISCO-mini.jpg" type="image/jpeg" rel="enclosure"/>
</entry>

<entry>
    <title>#OccupyWallSt v2: What Cross-Partisanship Must Mean</title>
    <link rel="alternate" type="text/html" href="http://www.huffingtonpost.com/lawrence-lessig/occupywallst-v2-what-cros_b_1000227.html"/>
    <id>tag:www.huffingtonpost.com,2011:/theblog//3.1000227</id>
    <published>2011-10-07T12:38:07-04:00</published>
    <updated>2011-12-07T05:12:01-05:00</updated>
    <summary><![CDATA[We must find a way to work with people we don't agree with to make this Republic work again. Yet as I walked through the Occupy Wall St. protest Wednesday, and asked people about such cross-partisanship, I was not encouraged.]]></summary>
    <author>
        <name>Lawrence Lessig</name>
        <uri>http://www.huffingtonpost.com/lawrence-lessig/</uri>
    </author>
    <content type="html" xml:lang="en" xml:base="http://www.huffingtonpost.com/lawrence-lessig/"><![CDATA[I'm a liberal. I believe in a woman's right to choose. I believe gays should be free to marry. I believe that society has an obligation to help the worst off. I believe public education should be free and fantastic. The government should not be allowed to spy on me, or my neighbors, whether they are citizens or not. Business should not be allowed to pollute the environment. Markets, I believe, when properly regulated, produce extraordinary innovation and spread wealth. I believe no one should be permitted to buy an election, human or not. I believe equality is a means to a better society. Regulation is necessary to keep the powerful true. And swift and efficient justice is necessary when the powerful are not true. I believe in the Great Society, even if we've not found it yet. I listen to NPR. I am a card carrying member of the ACLU.<br />
<br />
But I also believe that the only way to fix this Republic is through cross-partisan reform. We must, I believe, find a way to work with people we don't agree with to make this Republic work again. People who think differently from how we do about a wide range of substantive policy questions -- from taxation to regulation to Internet policy to federalism.<br />
<br />
Yet as I walked through the #OccupyWallSt protest Wednesday, and asked people about such cross-partisanship, I was not encouraged. There is an anger and frustration among those on the Left. They feel they've tried compromise before. It got us this. They're not interested in more of this. They want something different. They want change. The sort of change they can really believe in.<br />
<br />
And I realized then just how hard it was going to be to get people to understand what cross-partisan must mean. It does not mean compromising on substantive issues. It does not mean finding the middle between Left and Right. It does not mean the incoherent "bipartisanship" that too often takes over DC -- giving us the wars in Iraq and Afghanistan, the war on drugs, and the sort of justice system that executes Troy Davis. <br />
<br />
It means instead a <em>constitutional</em> cross-partisanship: The recognition that however much we disagree about substantive issues, we have to be able to agree about the system within which we work out those substantive disagreements. That however much we disagree as Democrats and Republicans, there has to be a foundation of agreement as citizens -- about at the very least the system within which disagreement gets resolved. <br />
<br />
That system for us is a democracy. Or more precisely, a <em>representative democracy</em>, cabined by a constitution that both limits the power of government and checks the power of one branch against the others. It is the rules of the game. The terms upon which competition happens. <br />
<br />
Sometimes those rules don't work. Or they don't work anymore. Sometimes they defeat the objectives of not just one side in a competition, but all sides. And when that happens, all sides need to stop the competition for a moment and fix the rules. All sides must cooperate to make competition between all sides work again. <br />
<br />
<em>This</em> is the cross-partisanship that I mean. <br />
<br />
The Republic that our framers gave us does not work anymore. It does not work for the Left. It does not work for the Right. Federalist 52 promised us a Congress "dependent upon the People alone." The last 15 years have produced a Congress dependent upon the Funders primarily. Members of Congress spend between 30% and 70% of their time raising money to get back to Congress or to get their party back in power. As they do this, they obviously -- <em>obviously</em> -- bend themselves and their policies in a way that makes it easier for them to raise money. And as they do that, they send a clear message to America. Like a father fingering his Blackberry rather than playing with his kids, Congress shows us that we don't matter. And like that kid, we get it. 75% of Americans believe "money buys results in Congress." Only 12% of Americans have confidence in what Congress does.<br />
<br />
<em>12%.</em> We need to keep that number in context. There were more who believed in the British Crown at the time of the Revolution than who believe in this Congress today. This Republic is lost. And it is way past time for us to get it back. <br />
<br />
But we won't get it back unless we find a way to work  across the diversity that is America. Not to shove that diversity into a blender. But to find common ground about what's gone wrong, and to commit to a common path to fixing it. We, as Americans, may not have common goals. We do, however, have a common enemy.<br />
<br />
That enemy is the corruption of Congress. The single fact that most all of us agree about is that our Congress is bought, and our politics, corrupted. Not the buying of quid pro quo bribery. Congress is not criminal. But you don't have to be a criminal to be corrupt. The corruption that is our Congress is in plain sight. It is legal, indeed, protected by the First Amendment. It is the bending and contorting to feed the fundraising frenzy that occupies the majority of the life of too many in Congress. And everyone -- from Bill O'Reilly to Jon Stewart (really, <a href="http://www.csmonitor.com/USA/Elections/Vox-News/2010/0928/Jon-Stewart-and-Bill-O-Reilly-bond-over-campaign-corruption" target="_hplink">watch</a>) -- should be able to agree that this corruption is at the root of the problems facing this Republic. And that until we remedy this corruption, this Republic will remain lost. <br />
<br />
I was hopeful about #OccupyWallSt because it is the first mass movement that might accurately speak to this more fundamental corruption. For as I explained <a href="http://www.huffingtonpost.com/lawrence-lessig/occupywallst-then-occupyk_b_995547.html" target="_hplink">here before</a>, the story of Wall Street is this story of government corrupted. Not just in the lead up to the collapse, but more brazenly and terrifyingly in the aftermath of that collapse -- when Wall Street effectively blackmailed both Republicans and Democrats to block any meaningful reform. #OccupyWallSt should be to call out this corruption, and unite a movement across the nation to demand that we change the system that permits this corruption. This is the root in Thoreau's "there are a thousand hacking at the branches of evil to one striking at the root." This movement could be that one.<br />
<br />
If it were, then it would be a million times more important than what happened in Madison. There was no way to understand the protests in Madison except as Democrat against Republican, as Left versus Right. The same with the Tea Party which, try as its leaders might, is only ever understood in America as the Right against the Left. <br />
<br />
But as Tea Party Patriots co-founder <a href="http://vimeo.com/30205199" target="_hplink">Mark Meckler told a packed and rapt audience</a> at Harvard last month, we have to find a way to resist the business model that depends upon "making us hate each other." We must find a way to look beyond our differences, to bracket those differences, so we can fix the system within which those differences compete. We need a time out, to fix the rules so that politics is not  just a game to feed the ratings of cable news and Comedy Central. <br />
<br />
I agree with you, Mark Meckler, that there is a business model of hate. It is the business model of too many, and it is destroying this Republic. So let's put the fight over Medicare or Social Security aside for a moment, and find a way to fix this Republic. Not by criticizing those who dress differently (as is the Fox News meme of the day about these protesters), but by recognizing the passion of people who love this country every bit as much as you, and by working to unite us against our common enemy: The corruption that is this Congress.]]></content>
</entry>

<entry>
    <title>#OccupyWallSt, Then #OccupyKSt, Then #OccupyMainSt</title>
    <link rel="alternate" type="text/html" href="http://www.huffingtonpost.com/lawrence-lessig/occupywallst-then-occupyk_b_995547.html"/>
    <id>tag:www.huffingtonpost.com,2011:/theblog//3.995547</id>
    <published>2011-10-05T05:48:45-04:00</published>
    <updated>2011-12-05T05:12:01-05:00</updated>
    <summary><![CDATA[It is way too early, and perhaps even a bit crazy, to see an American Spring in the growing protests on Wall Street. Yet. But there is no doubt that if there is one place in America that these protests should begin, it is there, and it is now. ]]></summary>
    <author>
        <name>Lawrence Lessig</name>
        <uri>http://www.huffingtonpost.com/lawrence-lessig/</uri>
    </author>
    <content type="html" xml:lang="en" xml:base="http://www.huffingtonpost.com/lawrence-lessig/"><![CDATA[It is way too early, and perhaps even a bit crazy, to see an American Spring in the growing protests on Wall Street. Yet. But there is no doubt that if there is one place in America that these protests should begin, it is there, and it is now. <br />
<br />
Writers by the dozen have lamented the influence that Wall Street exercised over Washington throughout the 1990s, leading up to the great collapse of 2008. A multi-billion dollar lobbying campaign, tied to hundreds of millions in campaign contributions, got Washington to erase its regulations and withdraw its regulators. One statistic summarizes it all:  in 1980, close to 100 percent of the financial instruments traded in the market were subject to New Deal exchange-based regulations; by 2008, 90 percent were exempted from those regulations, effectively free of any regulatory oversight. <br />
<br />
But there is nothing at all surprising in that story. The spirit of the times was deregulation. The ideology of Democrats and Republicans alike was regulatory retreat. No one should be surprised, however much we should lament, that politicians did what the zeitgeist said: go home -- especially when they were given first class tickets for the ride.  <br />
<br />
What is surprising -- indeed, terrifying, given what it says about this democracy -- is what happened after the collapse. That even after the worst financial crises in 80 years, and even after the lions share of responsibility for that crisis had been linked to finance laissez faire, and even after the dean of finance laissez faire, the great Alan Greenspan, expressly confessed that it was wrong, and that he "<a href="http://www.nytimes.com/2008/10/24/business/economy/24panel.html" target="_hplink">made a mistake</a>," nothing changed. A president elected with the spirit of Louis Brandeis ("[We have to stop] Wall Street from taking enormous risks with 'other people's money'"), who promised to "take up that fight" "to change the way Washington works," ("for far too long, through both Democratic and Republican administrations, Washington has allowed Wall Street to use lobbyists and campaign contributions to rig the system and get its way, no matter what it costs ordinary Americans"), and who was handed a crisis (read: opportunity) and a supermajority in Congress to make real change, <em>did nothing</em> about this root to our financial collapse. The "financial reform bill" is the reason the English language invented the scare quote: As every financial analyst not dependent upon the corruption that is Wall Street has screamed since the bill was passed, financial reform changed nothing. We are more at risk of a major financial collapse today than we were a decade ago. And the absolutely obscene bonuses of an industry that pays twice its pretax profits in salaries are even more secure today.<br />
<br />
How could this possibly be? Never in the history of this nation have the agents of financial collapse so effectively avoided a regulatory response to that collapse. How is it that now they have not only avoided reform, but have effectively cemented their Ponzi scheme into the core of American law? <br />
<br />
The protesters #occupy(ing)WallSt are looking for answers to that question. They should look no further than the dollar bills  that they are taping to their mouths. The root to this pathology is not hard to see. The cure is not hard to imagine. The difficult task -- and at times, it seems, impossibly difficult task -- is to imagine how that cure might be brought about. <br />
<br />
The arrest of hundreds of tired and unwashed kids, denied the freedom of a bullhorn, and the right to protest on public streets, may well be the first real green-shoots of this, the American spring. And if nurtured right, it could well begin real change.<br />
<br />
In my book, <a href="http://www.amazon.com/gp/product/0446576433/ref=as_li_tf_tl?ie=UTF8&amp;tag=republiclost-20&amp;linkCode=as2&amp;camp=217145&amp;creative=399373&amp;creativeASIN=0446576433"><em>Republic, Lost: How Money Corrupts Congress--and a Plan to Stop It</em></a><img src="http://www.assoc-amazon.com/e/ir?t=republiclost-20&amp;l=as2&amp;o=1&amp;a=0446576433&amp;camp=217145&amp;creative=399373" width="1" height="1" border="0" alt="" style="border:none !important; margin:0px !important;" />-- published today by <a href="http://www.twelvebooks.com/content/index.asp" target="_hplink">Twelve</a>, I spend hundreds of pages trying to make clear what should be obvious to every single protester shivering in a Wall Street doorway. But the whole point of the book could be captured in the single quote that I stole from Thoreau right at a start: "there are a thousand hacking at the branches of evil, to one who is striking at the root." <br />
<br />
These protesters should see that they are that one striking at the root. They should understand that our system has been corrupted by money -- even if the Supreme Court <a href="http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Citizens_United_v._Federal_Election_Commission" target="_hplink">refuses to call it "corruption,"</a> and even if political scientists are unsure about whether their regressions can show it. And they should recognize that until this root is hacked, the weeds of this corruption will continue to destroy this democracy, and this nation. <br />
<br />
Now conservatives are eager to insist that our framers didn't give us a "democracy." They gave us, they say, "a Republic."  And so they did. A Republic -- by which the framers meant, as <a href="http://www.constitution.org/fed/federa10.htm" target="_hplink">Federalist 10</a> makes clear, a "representative democracy."  By which the framers expected, as <a href="http://www.constitution.org/fed/federa52.htm" target="_hplink">Federalist 52</a> makes clear, a Congress "dependent upon the People alone." <br />
<br />
But ours is not a Congress "dependent upon the People alone" -- or even mainly. It has instead allowed a different dependency to grow within its midst: a dependency upon the Funders of its campaigns. And so great is that different and conflicting dependency that even the worst financial crisis in three generations can't break their obsession with the fix. Neither party dares to cross Wall Street, since both parties know they could not win control of Congress or the White House without Wall Street's money. So they feed the addiction, and ignore the real work that they should be doing.  <br />
<br />
#OccupyWallSt needs to teach America this lesson. It needs to speak to the wide range of citizens who believe it. You don't have to be a Marxist to rally against the corruption that is our Congress. You don't have to be Dr. Pangloss to believe that people who don't share common ends might nonetheless have a common enemy. <br />
<br />
This corruption is our common enemy. So let this protest first #OccupyWallSt, and then #OccupyKSt. And then let the anger and outrage that it has made clear lead many more Americans to #OccupyMainSt, and reclaim this republic.<br />
<br />
For if done right, this movement just may have that potential. What the protesters are saying is true: Wall Street's money has corrupted this democracy. What they are demanding is right: An end to that corruption.  And as <a href="http://www.flickr.com/" target="_hplink">Flickr</a> feeds and <a href="http://twitter.com/#!/search/%23rootstrikers" target="_hplink">tweets</a> awaken a slumbering giant, the People, the justice in this, yet another American revolution, could well become overwhelming, and finally have an effect. <br />
]]></content>
    <link href="http://i.huffpost.com/gen/367948/thumbs/s-JEFF-MANGUM-OCCUPY-WALL-STREET-mini.jpg" type="image/jpeg" rel="enclosure"/>
</entry>

<entry>
    <title>Report from the Conference on the Constitutional Convention</title>
    <link rel="alternate" type="text/html" href="http://www.huffingtonpost.com/lawrence-lessig/report-from-the-conferenc_b_988902.html"/>
    <id>tag:www.huffingtonpost.com,2011:/theblog//3.988902</id>
    <published>2011-09-30T11:25:28-04:00</published>
    <updated>2011-11-30T05:12:03-05:00</updated>
    <summary><![CDATA[Most Americans can surely agree that Congress, as much as possible, should be unconstrained by incentives that compel it to behave differently than would a representative sample of Americans, coming together to try to do what's best for our country.]]></summary>
    <author>
        <name>Lawrence Lessig</name>
        <uri>http://www.huffingtonpost.com/lawrence-lessig/</uri>
    </author>
    <content type="html" xml:lang="en" xml:base="http://www.huffingtonpost.com/lawrence-lessig/"><![CDATA[The <a href="http://teapartypatriots.org" target="_hplink">Tea Party Patriots</a> <a href="http://conconcon.org" target="_hplink">came to Harvard</a> and it was, well.... a little bit boring.  <br />
<br />
We've been taught to believe not only that Americans can't achieve consensus around key issues, but that we can't even tolerate each other enough to carry on a meaningful debate. Yet last weekend nearly 400 of us gathered at Harvard and did just that. <br />
<br />
The <a href="http://conconcon.org" target="_hplink">Conference on the Constitutional Convention</a> was sponsored by Harvard Law School, <a href="http://Rootstrikers.org" target="_hplink">Rootstrikers</a> (which works to reduce the role of special interest money in elections) and the <a href="http://teapartypatriots.org" target="_hplink">Tea Party Patriots</a>.  <br />
<br />
We came together around a simple point of agreement: From the Right and the Left, citizens increasingly believe that our Republic does not work. Reform of any kind is stalled by a status quo that profits from blocking change. No side in the political debate benefits from this inertia.<br />
<br />
The question before us was whether the appropriate response is to push for an Article V Constitutional Convention:  According to <a href="http://goldwaterinstitute.org/articlev" target="_hplink">Article V of the Constitution</a>, if two-thirds of the state legislatures pass resolutions calling for a convention, then Congress must convene one. All sides would then have the opportunity to argue for the changes they believe will restore our Republic. Any amendment that gets proposed by the Convention must then be ratified by three fourths of the states to become law. Three-fourths means 38 states. So 13 states have the power to veto any change, guaranteeing that no extremism from either side could ever have an effect.<br />
<br />
Attendees included unionists and anti-war activists, states' rights-ers and balanced budget advocates, electoral reformers and people who want to amend the amendment process. There was neither shoving nor shouting, no bullying or bloviating:  We got along, we had a productive conversation, and we built a foundation of understanding that we can add to later. <br />
<br />
Granted, our discussion wasn't contorted by the incentives that warp conversations in Washington, or on cable TV.  Attendees weren't sifted through that same array of filters that makes it next to impossible for an ordinary American to win a seat in Congress. Nor was the conversation steered by cable TV producers constantly aware that only sizzle earns ad revenue. We were free to listen and speak, without worrying about whether being boring would cost us money. And what we found was that being boring bought us understanding. As Mark Meckler, co-founder of the Tea Party Patriots put it, there is a business model that profits from "teaching us to hate each other." Everyone there was working against that model. <br />
<br />
And that, ultimately, was the point of the conference: Most Americans can surely agree that Congress, as much as possible, should be unconstrained by incentives that compel it to behave differently than would a representative sample of Americans, coming together to try to do what's best for our country. <br />
<br />
But instead we have a Congress that's so thoroughly captured by narrow interests, subject to so many perverse incentives, that it's overwhelmingly disdained by the people whom it's supposed to represent -- with recent polls showing only 12% confidence ratings. Whether you want smaller government or more effective government, this system is not working. And it is foolish to expect Congress on its own to institute the necessary changes -- as it is, by identity, composed entirely of people who've found success playing under the current rules.<br />
<br />
Madison reports that at the first Constitutional Convention in 1787, Virginia's George Mason argued that if the proposing of amendments were to depend "on Congress, no amendments of the proper kind would ever be obtained by the people, if the Government should become oppressive, as he verily believed would be the case." <br />
<br />
Not everybody at our conference agreed that a Convention was the right remedy, at least not yet. But most -- even those from some pretty austere and established institutions, including the <a href="http://goldwaterinstitute.org/articlev" target="_hplink">Goldwater Institute</a> -- were open to exploring the idea further.  <br />
<br />
If you're interested in learning more, check out <a href="http://CallAConvention.org" target="_hplink">CallAConvention.org</a>. <br />
<br />
But if you're just interested in bloviating, tune to your favorite cable TV news show. Or C-Span's coverage of the floors of Congress.<br />
<br />
]]></content>
</entry>

<entry>
    <title>The Good Soul Howard Schultz: Exploiting an Addict Rather Than Ending an Addiction</title>
    <link rel="alternate" type="text/html" href="http://www.huffingtonpost.com/lawrence-lessig/the-good-soul-howard-schu_b_936287.html"/>
    <id>tag:www.huffingtonpost.com,2011:/theblog//3.936287</id>
    <published>2011-08-25T11:12:47-04:00</published>
    <updated>2011-10-25T05:12:01-04:00</updated>
    <summary><![CDATA[What decent citizens and reformers like Howard Schultz need to do is to use their power to get Congress to end its addiction, by pushing for reforms that would make it possible for government to act sanely and independently of special interest funders. ]]></summary>
    <author>
        <name>Lawrence Lessig</name>
        <uri>http://www.huffingtonpost.com/lawrence-lessig/</uri>
    </author>
    <content type="html" xml:lang="en" xml:base="http://www.huffingtonpost.com/lawrence-lessig/"><![CDATA[Starbucks CEO Howard Schultz has joined a small but important group of business leaders who believe it right to use their personal influence to make government work better. In a letter to colleagues and friends, <a href="http://www.politico.com/news/stories/0811/61396.html" target="_hplink">Schultz pledged</a> to end his contributions to political campaigns "until [politicians] strike a bipartisan, balanced long-term debt deal that addresses both entitlements and revenues." He also pledged on behalf of Starbucks to "hire and accelerate employment." Both pledges flow from an obviously deeply felt view that something profoundly wrong has happened to our government and nation. His efforts -- like the efforts of Warren Buffett and Bill Gates -- are not first steps in a political campaign. They are the actions of decent citizens trying to make a society better. <br />
<br />
Schultz is right that something profoundly bad has happened to American politics. He is also right to tie that profound bad to the endless addiction that our elected officials have to campaign cash. We have entered a time when politicians like Republican Scott Brown are not even embarrassed to argue that while programs like Medicare and Social Security must be on the budget chopping block, subsidies to big oil (a contributor to Scott Brown) <a href="http://campaignmoney.org/blog/2011/08/09/scott-brown-defends-big-oil#.TkKLsBtXMow.twitter" target="_hplink">should not</a>. <strike>Or when Democrat Xavier Becerra, appointed to the "super Congress" that will have extraordinary power to make spending and revenue budget decisions, doesn't think twice about cashing in on his newly-found power by touting it in a <a href="http://blogs.wsj.com/washwire/2011/08/11/rep-becerra-touts-seat-on-debt-committee-in-fund-raising-pitch/?mod=WSJBlog&amp;utm_source=twitterfeed&amp;utm_medium=twitter" target="_hplink">fundraising letter</a> to DC lobbyists.</strike> (<strong>Update</strong>: Congressman Becarra writes that he "did not know, did not ask, would not ask and I will not ask any of my supporters to use my appointment to the select committee for purposes outside its principle focus." Bravo.) Or when Congress, in the middle of two wars, a recession, a jobs crisis, and an impending government shutdown, spends <a href="http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2011/04/28/swipe-fees-interchange-banks-merchants_n_853574.html" target="_hplink">most of its attention</a> on whether "swipe fees" for debit cards should be higher (banks win) or lower (retailers win). Why would it do that? Because of course, both sides in that fight are only too eager to shower the not-yet-wooed Members with endless campaign cash. In context after context, the priorities and sensibilities of this Congress are queered by its perpetual addiction to campaign funds. Nothing in Washington will change until we change this.  <br />
<br />
But however right his motivation, Schultz's pledge to withhold campaign dollars until Congress agrees on a budget won't fix this mess. No doubt, you can get an addict to clean up the garage by withholding his fix until he is done. But that won't help the addict end his addiction. The same with our cash-addicted-Congress: What reformers like Schultz need to do is to use their power to get Congress to end its addiction, by pushing for reforms that would make it possible for government to act sanely and independently of special interest funders. <br />
<br />
That was the objective of Arnold Hiatt (former CEO of Stride Rite) and Alan Hassenfeld (former Chairman of Hasbro, Inc.) when they launched a similar campaign just last year, by writing (<a href="http://images.huffingtonpost.com/2011-08-25-hhletter.pdf"" target="_hplink">PDF</a>) to the largest campaign funders, and asking them to withhold funds from any candidate who didn't pledge to support the <a href="http://fairelectionsnow.org" target="_hplink">Fair Elections Now Act</a> -- a bill that would give candidates the chance to opt out of special interest funding, and into a voluntary system that would limit campaign contributions to $100, with each contribution matched 4 to 1 by the government. Their letter convinced scores of large funders -- including producer and director J.J. Abrams, Edgar Bronfman Jr., CEO of Warner Music, Ben Cohen, co-founder of Ben &amp; Jerry's, and Vin Ryan, Chairman of Schooner Capital -- to withhold campaign contributions from special interest candidates. It also inspired thousands of smaller contributors to make a similar pledge.  <br />
<br />
The Hiatt/Hassenfeld strategy uses the leverage of campaign contributions to change the system for funding campaigns. It doesn't withhold the fix. It ends the addiction. There are any number of important causes that powerful souls like Schultz could organize funder strikes around -- bank reform, health care reform, tax reform, global warming legislation -- for our current Congress can't address any of these issues sensibly because special interests always block change. But far better is a strategy to change the environment within which these special interests can always block change. That was Hiatt and Hassenfeld's objective -- an objective that Schultz's approach cannot achieve. <br />
<br />
Schultz could fix this flaw by adding an escape clause to his current pledge. Let contributors promise not to give unless Congress strikes a deal <strong>or</strong> a candidate pledges to funding reform. Let this powerful movement produce something permanent, rather than a single victory in an endless tale of defeat. <br />
<br />
"There are a thousand hacking at the branches of evil," wrote Thoreau in Walden, "to one striking at the root." We need souls like Schultz to be that one, striking at the root, if the efforts of the thousands are ever to have an effect.]]></content>
</entry>

<entry>
    <title>A Conference on the Constitutional Convention</title>
    <link rel="alternate" type="text/html" href="http://www.huffingtonpost.com/lawrence-lessig/a-conference-on-the-const_b_923249.html"/>
    <id>tag:www.huffingtonpost.com,2011:/theblog//3.923249</id>
    <published>2011-08-10T11:11:53-04:00</published>
    <updated>2011-10-10T05:12:02-04:00</updated>
    <summary><![CDATA[As many of us believe that our nation has come to another moment of crisis in its capacity to govern, some of us believe we must begin to talk through whether fundamental reform through a convention will be required.]]></summary>
    <author>
        <name>Lawrence Lessig</name>
        <uri>http://www.huffingtonpost.com/lawrence-lessig/</uri>
    </author>
    <content type="html" xml:lang="en" xml:base="http://www.huffingtonpost.com/lawrence-lessig/"><![CDATA[Two hundred and twenty four years ago, people of radically different views put aside those differences long enough to save this Nation. America was on the brink of collapse. Its first constitution was an unmitigated disaster. Only a radical, and some say illegal, reform could restore the promise of the nation declared a generation before when it claimed its independence from Britain.<br />
<br />
We forget this fact about them today. To us, they all look very much alike -- white guys, some in wigs, eloquent and brave no doubt, but certainly not the picture of significant difference in either ideas or values. Yet when the men who founded this nation met in Philadelphia in the summer of 1787, there were fundamental differences among them. Slavery, for example: The men who founded this nation were critically divided on this fundamental question. Some thought it natural and appropriate. Some thought it the quintessential injustice. Yet they were able to put even this difference aside enough to craft a pact that would give birth to our constitution (and eventually, death to slavery).  <br />
<br />
On September 24 &amp; 25, I will co-host a <a href="http://conconcon.org" target="_hplink">conference at Harvard</a> with <a href="http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Tea_Party_Patriots" target="_hplink">Tea Party Patriots</a> co-founder <a href="http://www.markmeckler.net/" target="_hplink">Mark Meckler</a>, on whether it is time for a new constitutional convention. Our conference is obviously not that convention. We don't pretend to parallel that event two and a quarter centuries ago, and certainly not any of its characters. <br />
<br />
But as many of us believe that our nation has come to another moment of crisis in its capacity to govern, some of us believe we must begin to talk through whether fundamental reform through a convention will be required. <br />
<br />
Meckler and I want to have that conversation the way our Framers did -- as a respectful discussion among people who disagree fundamentally. I have enormous respect for Meckler, and the movement that he helped to birth. But I am not an ally of the Tea Party. I share the belief that our nation needs fundamental reform. I don't share a belief in the substance of the reform that the Tea Party has pushed. <br />
<br />
Yet the differences between Meckler and me, or between the Tea Party and the Left more generally, are tiny as compared to the differences among many of our Founders. However much we disagree, our disagreement is puny as compared to the fight over slavery, or the decision about whether to found this nation as a monarchy or a republic. Meckler and I believe that if <strong>THEY</strong> could put aside their differences long enough to debate with respect the changes their constitution might need, then <strong>WE</strong> should be able to put aside our much smaller differences to focus on a way to end our own crisis of governance. <br />
<br />
The convention that we will discuss is not, however, the same sort of convention that gave birth to the Constitution. It is instead a convention explicitly envisioned by that constitution. <a href="http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Article_Five_of_the_United_States_Constitution" target="_hplink">Article V of the Constitution</a> gives the states the power to demand that Congress "call a Convention for proposing amendments" to the Constitution. Such amendments are only valid when ratified by 3/4ths of the states. Never in the history of the Nation has an Article V convention been called -- though we came close a century ago, when the call for a convention to make the senate elected was within one vote of the necessary two thirds. That was enough to spur Congress to reform itself, by proposing its own amendment and ending the need for a convention.<br />
<br />
We will start this conversation with all of us not yet convinced that a convention is either necessary or wise. It is my view that is is. Meckler doesn't (yet) share that view. And over the course of the two day event, lawyers, historians, political scientists, and activists from both the Left and the Right will discuss whether and how a convention might proceed. <br />
<br />
I am open to being convinced that a convention is unwise (though I would then despair about how we will effect the fundamental reform our government needs). But I am convinced already that much of the debate about a convention is, let's say, under-informed.  We should at least be able to have a conversation that remedies this, even if we can't agree about whether a convention would be wise. <br />
<br />
If you'd like to attend, check out <a href="http://conconcon.org" target="_hplink">http://conconcon.org</a>. If you can help to cover the costs of this project, you can donate <a href="https://conconcon.eventbrite.com/" target="_hplink">here</a>. <br />
<br />
But please save the rage that these efforts at across-the-isle exchange inevitably inspire. I can distinguish between talking to someone, and agreeing with them. We all should recognize that the very reason our Republic embraced a representative democracy was because it was clear to our Framers that there would always be people to disagree with. What we've lost is not a world in which everyone agrees. What we've lost is a practice of respectful deliberation about those disagreements. If it does nothing else, this <strong>Con</strong>ference on the <strong>Con</strong>stitutional <strong>Con</strong>vention will demonstrate that practice. <br />
]]></content>
</entry>

<entry>
    <title>An Open Letter to North Carolina Gov. Bev Perdue: Support Community Broadband</title>
    <link rel="alternate" type="text/html" href="http://www.huffingtonpost.com/lawrence-lessig/an-open-letter-to-north-c_b_864562.html"/>
    <id>tag:www.huffingtonpost.com,2011:/theblog//3.864562</id>
    <published>2011-05-20T06:09:02-04:00</published>
    <updated>2011-07-20T05:12:01-04:00</updated>
    <summary><![CDATA[H.129 is terrible public policy. The Internet is essential infrastructure for the 21st century, and communities that rely solely upon private companies to provide public infrastructure will always have second-rate service. ]]></summary>
    <author>
        <name>Lawrence Lessig</name>
        <uri>http://www.huffingtonpost.com/lawrence-lessig/</uri>
    </author>
    <content type="html" xml:lang="en" xml:base="http://www.huffingtonpost.com/lawrence-lessig/"><![CDATA[Dear Governor Perdue: <br />
<br />
On your desk is a bill passed by the overwhelmingly Republican North Carolina legislature to ban local communities from building or supporting community broadband networks. (<a href="http://www.muninetworks.org/content/digging-h129-another-bill-nc-limit-local-authority-and-broadband-competition" target="_hplink">H.129</a>). By midnight tonight, you must decide whether to veto that bill, and force the legislature to take a second look. <br />
<br />
North Carolina is an overwhelmingly rural state. Relative to the communities it competes with around the globe, it has among the slowest and most expensive Internet service. No economy will thrive in the 21st century without fast, cheap broadband, linking citizens, and enabling businesses to compete. And thus many communities throughout your state have contracted with private businesses to build their own community broadband networks. <br />
<br />
These networks have been extraordinarily effective. The prices they offer North Carolinians is a fraction of the comparable cost of commercial network providers. The speed they offer is also much much faster. <br />
<br />
This single picture, prepared by the <a href="http://www.muninetworks.org/" target="_hplink">Institute for Local Self Reliance</a>, says it all: The yellow and green dots represent the download (x-axis) and upload (y-axis) speeds provided by two community networks in North Carolina. Their size represents their price. As you can see, community networks provide faster, cheaper service than their commercial competitors. And they provide much faster service overall. <br />
<a href="http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=aMGdZD9qQxo" target="_hplink"><center><img alt="2011-05-20-broadbandgraph.png" src="http://images.huffingtonpost.com/2011-05-20-broadbandgraph.png" width="499" height="290" /></center></a><br />
<br />
Local competition in broadband service benefits the citizens who have demanded it. For that reason, community after community in North Carolina have <a href="http://www.muninetworks.org/taxonomy/term/566" target="_hplink">passed resolutions</a> asking you to give them the chance to provide the Internet service that the national quasi-monopolies have not. It is why <a href="http://www.muninetworks.org/content/opposition-builds-twc-bill-nc-private-companies-weigh-against-bill" target="_hplink">businesses from across the nation</a> have opposed the bill, and business leaders from your state, including Red Hat VP Michael Tiemann, have <a href="http://rootstrikers.org/story/nc-should-encourage-not-prohibit-community-broadband/" target="_hplink">called upon you</a> to veto the bill.<br />
<br />
Commercial broadband providers are not happy with this new competition, however. After spending millions in lobbying and campaign contributions in North Carolina, they convinced your legislature to override the will of local North Carolina communities, and ban these faster, cheaper broadband networks. Rather than compete with better service, and better prices, they secured a government-granted protection against competition. And now, unless you veto H. 129, that protection against competition will become law.<br />
<br />
Opponents of community broadband argue that it is "unfair" for broadband companies to have to compete against community-supported networks. But the same might be said of companies that would like to provide private roads. Or private fire protection. Or private police protection. Or private street lights. These companies too would face real competition from communities that choose to provide these services themselves. But no one would say that we should close down public fire departments just to be "fair" to potential private first-responders.<br />
<br />
The reason is obvious to economists and scholars of telecommunications policy. As, for example, Professor Brett Frischmann <a href="http://papers.ssrn.com/sol3/papers.cfm?abstract_id=255423" target="_hplink">argues</a>, the Internet is essential infrastructure for the 21st century. And communities that rely solely upon private companies to provide public infrastructure will always have second-rate, or inferior, service. <br />
<br />
In other nations around the world, strong rules forcing networks to compete guarantee faster, cheaper Internet than the private market alone would.  Yet our FCC has abdicated its responsibility to create the conditions under which true private broadband competition might flourish in the United States. Instead, the United States has become a broadband backwater, out-competed not only by nations such as Japan and Korea, but also Britain, Germany and even France. According to a <a href="http://cyber.law.harvard.edu/research/broadband_review" target="_hplink">study</a> by the Harvard Berkman Center completed last year, we rank 19th among OECD countries in combined prices for next generation Internet, and 19th for average advertised speeds. Overall, we rank below every major democratic competitor -- including Spain -- and just above Italy.<br />
<br />
In a world in which FCC commissioners retire from the commission and take jobs with the companies they regulate (as Commissioner Baker <a href="http://www.muninetworks.org/content/daily-show-fcc-commissioners-comcastic-retirement" target="_hplink">has announced</a> that she will do, by joining Comcast as a lobbyist, and as former FCC Chairman Powell <a href="http://www.dslreports.com/shownews/Former-FCC-Boss-Michael-Powell-Now-Top-Cable-Lobbyist-113177" target="_hplink">has done</a>, becoming a cable industry lobbyist), it is perhaps not surprising that these networks are protected from real competition. <br />
<br />
But whether surprising or not, the real heroes in this story are the local communities that have chosen not to wait for federal regulators to wake up, and who have decided to create competition of their own. No community bans private networks. No community is unfairly subsidizing public service. Instead, local North Carolina communities are simply contracting to build 21st-century technology, so that citizens throughout the state can have 21st-century broadband at a price they can afford.<br />
<br />
As an academic who has studied this question for more than a decade, I join many in believing that H.129 is terrible public policy. <br />
<br />
But it is as a Democrat that I implore you to take a stand on this issue, and veto this bill. <br />
<br />
Many of us Democrats have been enormously disappointed by the failure of our party to stand for principles that matter. There's always an excuse for ducking a fight -- which it seems only our side ever sees. Ideologues on the far right have radically remade public policy throughout the nation, while moderates and progressives keep their heads low. And many of us are now embarrassed to even read the slogan that earned the Democratic Party the presidency and control of Congress in 2008 -- "Change you can believe in." The only real change that we have seen is in the extraordinary effectiveness of the far right to define the nation's agenda and, though a minority party, force it upon the nation. And when the far right aligns with the endless stream of corporate lobbying and campaign cash, it seems that there is no issue that the majority of citizens can actually prevail upon. <br />
<br />
Be a different kind of Democrat, Governor Perdue. I know you've received thousands of comments from citizens of North Carolina asking you to veto H.129. I know that given the size of the Republican majority in the legislature, it would be hard for your veto to be sustained.<br />
<br />
But if you took this position of principle, regardless of whether or not you will ultimately prevail, you would inspire hundreds of thousands to join with you in a fight that is critical to the economic future of not just North Carolina, but the nation. And you would have shown Republicans and Democrats alike that it is possible for a leader to stand up against endless corporate campaign cash.<br />
<br />
There is no defeat in standing for what you believe in. So stand with the majority of North Carolina's citizens, and affirm the right of communities to provide not just the infrastructure of yesterday -- schools, roads, public lighting, public police forces, and fire departments -- but also the infrastructure of tomorrow -- by driving competition to provide the 21st century's information superhighway. <br />
<br />
With respect, <br />
<br />
Lawrence Lessig<br />
<br />
<br />
<em>To contact the governor, you can <a href="mailto:governor.office@nc.gov" target="_hplink">email her</a>. If you're from North Carolina, this <a href="http://act2.freepress.net/call/nc_governor/" target="_hplink">link</a> will take you to a tool to call the governor's office. You can follow this fight on Twitter at @communitynets <br />
You can follow <a href="http://rootstrikers.com" target="_hplink">similar fights</a> on Twitter by searching #rootstrikers. </em>]]></content>
    <link href="http://i.huffpost.com/gen/276265/thumbs/s-CYBERCHONDRIA-mini.jpg" type="image/jpeg" rel="enclosure"/>
</entry>
</feed>