As many of you know, I've turned my central focus away from the issue covered in my recent books - the Internet and "free culture" - and turned it instead toward combating corruption in Congress.
I did this because we all have issues that we care about most, but progress will be stifled on every big issue until we solve the threshold problem: big-money interests having disproportional clout in our public debates.
Later this month, I and others will announce a large grassroots campaign aimed at channeling the amazing desire for change that Americans are feeling right now into tangible and fundamental reform of our political system.
Together, we will demand that politicians pass a law removing the power to fund congressional elections from the hands of special interests and put this power into the hands of regular people. (To be among the first to know about this new campaign, sign up here.)
This campaign will be led by Change Congress - the new organization I formed with Joe Trippi - and others in the reform community. But achieving this goal won't happen because of one person or organization; it will take all of us thinking through this problem together and then demanding big systemic change.
So, today, I'm asking for your help. Here are some questions that election reform advocates are pondering - can you think about them too and share your thoughts below? (I will join David Donnelly from Public Campaign Action Fund today in checking the comments below and responding to them. Please join the conversation.)
1) Reformers are considering a plan by which congressional candidates who raise a threshold number of small-dollar donations would qualify for a chunk of automatic funding - several hundred thousand dollars. If they accept this funding, they couldn't raise big-dollar donations. But they could still raise contributions up to a certain amount (such as $100 or $250), which would be matched several-times-over by the central fund, an incentive for politicians to opt into this system and focus on small-dollar givers. What do you think of this general framework?
2) Senators Dick Durbin and Arlen Specter sponsored a bipartisan bill last Congress that would make TV broadcasters pay a fee that would be the sole source of revenue for the central fund that candidates draw from. These broadcasters get access to our public airwaves for virtually free and make billions of dollars in revenue as a result. Under this scenario, no tax dollars would be used - eliminating the central talking point by reform opponents. What do you think about a fee on broadcasters to fund this reform?3) "Public financing" was the old name for this issue - which would no longer be accurate if the Durbin/Specter proposal passed. And the name's not that good anyway. What do you think we should call this reform? Clean elections? People-powered elections? Citizen-funded elections? People-funded elections?
4) Barack Obama is on the record supporting the reform of presidential public financing. Some reformers want to pass presidential financing reform first, then pass a separate congressional bill down the road. Others want to merge the two bills and have one joint national debate. What do you think?
We won't pass any meaningful reform without a nationwide grassroots movement. And you are key to that movement getting off the ground. We need your brainpower in thinking about the policies we'll rally around. Then, we'll move forward together.
Can you think about the questions above and share your answers below? I look forward to reading your responses and responding.
Click below for Lawrence Lessig's keynote address on corruption at Netroots Nation 2008:
To stay in the loop with Change Congress, click here.
Follow Lawrence Lessig on Twitter: www.twitter.com/lessig
From my post at the Center for Competitive Politics blog:
...basically, Lessig and Trippi and those who go along with this are going to let candidates know there's campaign cash available to them if they adopt their preferred public policy. And lots of cash, too - as the AP article notes, the "...group will tally the amount of donors withholding their money, along with the total they have contributed to political campaigns in the past, to show candidates how much cash they're leaving on the table if they refuse to support a citizens' financing measure."
...Umm, isn't this exactly the sort of thing the "reformers" are supposed to be opposed to? Interest groups putting cash on the table, promising candidates and elected officials that they'll get some of it if they vote their way? I would say I'm confused, but obviously but Lessig and Trippi are way ahead of me on that score.
Sean Parnell
President
Center for Competitive Politics
www.campaignfreedom.org
sparnell@campaignfreedom.org
Proposal 2) Good, if cable broadcasters included. Licenses should be contingent on broadcasters
providing a certain amount of free air-time for campaigns and debates by all candidates.
Broadcasters DON"T get to decide who is a "viable" candidate.
Proposal 3) Call it "Clean Elections"
Proposal 4) Do 'em all at once.
Equal money/equal time for all candidates; take money out of news; bring back journalism, be rid of news-readers.
How this all happens, I haven't a clue. Since everything is so commercialized, since 'news' is deliberately mixed with entertainment, and since news/politics is so profitable, I mostly think we're beyond a way out--but a solid movement as you offer, Mr. Lessig, is a start, and I'm signed up and ready to do my part.
1) There’s not sufficient time in a one-day analysis and comment window. General framework improvement, but concern over the leverage effect of some candidates over others from the central fund multiple. Also, impression is that it is inadequate to the problem.
2) Interesting, if sufficient. Support the concept.
3) The Electoral Funding Reform Act of 2009 - EFRA.
4) Any “separate congressional bill down the road” is a non-starter and would be a bet on the improbable. There should be one bill, covering both presidential and congressional.
1) Great idea but there have to be measures that prevent corporations from donating money from large amounts of private accounts.
2) This should definitely happen.
3) How about Dickspecter elections? :P
4) I think with the unpopularity of Congress, this should be the first bill passed, even before the presidential one if possible. Because of Obama's success with small donations this past election, this will be how most candidates raise money in the next election and you can bet that conservatives will use their patented fear mongering to scare the base to donate enormous amounts of cash.
One last point, I think that campaign commercials are a horrible way for candidates to get their message out. Most of these are usually just attacks on the other side and hardly ever say what the candidate proposes to do. The American people would be better served if these were eliminated completely. Hope we can get these reforms passed!
Think about this… A constitutional amendment that would state something like the following: Persons may only contribute to a candidate for which they are eligible to vote. The amount could be increased each year, but restrict the amount to the same percentage as the increase in the minimum wage.
Stop and think about everything that would be accomplished in one move.
If you want to get big money out of politics, apply the same advertising restrictions on political ads that are in place for cigarettes -- ban them from tv. Yes, it's that simple.
There would be no infringement of First Amendment rights, like the MSM has claimed in the past when this idea has been proposed, b/c politicians and their assorted ilk can still advertise in print media and on the radio and the internet -- only television would be affected -- and that's where the greatest portion of Big Money is spent anyway.
And that's why the fat cats in the MSM tv boardrooms don't like this idea -- it afffects their profit margins -- tv ads are their bread and butter, come election time. Whine, whine, whine.
Who cares if the current system is seriously undermining the principles which the country was founded on? And erroding democracy?
It's the greed, stupid!
Politely disagree.
The catch is that the American populace has to care.
People said Prop 13 would never pass, people said you could not mobilize an entire country for WW2 in 3 months etc etc etc (not that those things are "good.")
Some say public funding of elections is too expensive. It's too expensive not to.
It also would be best to get a Constitutional Amendment requiring that elections for national office be publicly funded and prohibiting all donations.
I'd also of my own opinion, go to what may be considered extreme, but .. Ban all gifts of any amount, any type from anyone while in the office that includes travel... if they cannot justify it by flying taxpayer funded 1st class, then it doesnt need to be done.
I would also legislate the time frames for the primary and the general election and mandate In-Person campaigning in all 50 states and voting territories. Its not at all equality to exclude some states because one either "cant spare the cash" to show up, or because one thinks either candidate has that state or territory sown up.
Theres no excuse to have a 1 yr + long primary, that ends with only 3 months of General election campaigning. Ridiculous. Our system is backwards.
Do away with caucuses, its not representational and from all appearances turns into an insane free for all of yelling, deal making, and BS, that ends up forcing people not to be able to vote for the candidate they wanted.
Don't forget the other end of the equation:
Ban all lobbying and wining and dining etc once they are _in_ office.
I'd also make Congressional jobs very unappealling to the power broker types.
We need a congress full of Kuciniches and Harvey Milks!
Point 2 --- I'll bet you didn't know who Harvey Milk was before the movie came out.
Point 3 --- Dennis Kucinich has fundraisers all of the time and guess who his biggest contributers are? Yep, lobbyists!
Point 4 --- Same thing applied to Barack Obama before he decided to run for President.
In addition to the public financing, a limited structure of debates and free airtime will be required of the networks. Around a billion dollars was spent on this last Presidential election. It's time to simplify, and reduce costs.
I'd like to prohibit media buys by 3rd parties, but that is certainly a First Amendment issue. We'd have to keep in place reasonable limits to prevent 3rd party media spending from being an unofficial donation and source of influence on candidates.
The convincing they will need has more to do with the fact that more and more of us are hip to their games, and want to put a stop to their shenanigans. It will not be easy, or pretty... but it can be done...
Yes, we can, and we will.
Everyone and any entity should be allowed to donate as much money as they please so long as the information is made public immediately.
A great number of donations are made by non-profit front orgs with innocent-sounding names like "People for Freedom" or something like that. Who wouldn't support "freedom?"
Until you learn that "People for Freedom" is a front group for the oil industry (or something), you might not be interested.
Transparency is a great idea, but really hard to make work. If you have some ideas on how to make things truly transparent, I'm all ears...