An Issue *Everyone* Here Can Rally Around: Get BIG Money Out Of Politics

[sharkbait28]

This is a brilliant talk on one of the core issues that drives so much of the corruption in our politics.

If you can get past the cheesy "Lester-land" analogy in the first few minutes you'll be rewarded with a thoughtful lecture on political corruption along with some practical suggestions on how we might fix the problem.


The Problem With Money in Politics - Lawrence Lessig, Harvard Law


(sidenote: I found Lessig's contrast between Malcolm X and MLK to be a little misleading... but it doesn't diminish the point he was making)




Reference Material

The American Anti-Corruption Act
Money Out Voters In
Wolf PAC

Critical Reviews (i ii)of Lessig's Book 'Republic Lost: How Money Corrupts Politics'

 

[sharkbait28]

I can't be the only person who cares about this stuff. Any thoughts?

 

[Upgrade Dave]

My thoughts?



The monied interests made sure Buddy Roemer was left out of any and all major Republican primary debates.

 

[thoughtone]

The answer is total public campaign financing.

 

[Lamarr]

Agreed, the only way to get money out of politics is to take the power to bestow largess away from politicians. As long as government has the power to take people's property & freedom and bestow it upon other people, people will be willing to pay to buy political influence. The only solution is to strictly limit government power such that politicians have nothing to give in exchange for support.

 

[Upgrade Dave]

Agreed, the only way to get money out of politics is to take the power to bestow largess away from politicians. As long as government has the power to take people's property & freedom and bestow it upon other people, people will be willing to pay to buy political influence. The only solution is to strictly limit government power such that politicians have nothing to give in exchange for support.

But even then they would still have the power to take and bestow.
I find it funny that you still don't see how completely unworkable libertarianism is on a large scale in a diverse nation like this one.

 

[Lamarr]

But even then they would still have the power to take and bestow.

true, however, we'd be closer to achieving our mutual goal of getting $$$ out of politics if we have a govt with a more limited role in our lives.

I find it funny that you still don't see how completely unworkable libertarianism is on a large scale in a diverse nation like this one.

I cant say libertarianism is the answer either but I'll stick to 2 points that do not cost us a dime

1) We don't have to police the world

2) Protect our civil liberties as outlined in the Bill of Rights

Our society would be much better

 

[thoughtone]

if we have a govt with a more limited role in our lives.

More nonsensical bullshit.

 

[Upgrade Dave]

true, however, we'd be closer to achieving our mutual goal of getting $$$ out of politics if we have a govt with a more limited role in our lives.

Dependingo on where you would suggest those cutbacks, I might agree with this. I agree with the overall idea but when I always need to see the details before I co-sign.

I cant say libertarianism is the answer either but I'll stick to 2 points that do not cost us a dime

1) We don't have to police the world

2) Protect our civil liberties as outlined in the Bill of Rights

Our society would be much better

No argument there.

 

[Lamarr]

More nonsensical bullshit.

 

[thoughtone]

Nice answer!

 

[QueEx]

I can't be the only person who cares about this stuff. Any thoughts?

1. Thank You ! (I'm more of a reader than a viewer - I can get to the salient points faster by reading and copy the highlights as notes for self and reposting. So with all of the things I have to do, reviewing a 43 min vid, unfortunately, just had to wait -- LOL). But, Again, many thanks !!!

2. I agree 110% that we need to change, fundamentally, the way campaigns are funded -- from top-down to bottom-up; that it is imperative that we close, if not reverse, the inequitable influence gap between the top 1 and the bottom 99; and, most of all, I agree that the goal must be communicated in ways that forge unity-of-purpose in order to avoid the default: politics of division -- lest this will result, like many other matters of great importance, on the trash heap of great ideas failed.

3. If successful, removing $$$ from campaigns (which I realize is less than saying removing $$$ from politics) I believe would have a ripple effect on most things that touch our lives on a frequent basis.

 

[QueEx]

But even then they would still have the power to take and bestow.

I find it funny that you still don't see how completely unworkable libertarianism is on a large scale in a diverse nation like this one.

. . . meaning, we haven't found the words to lead the great libertarian to cross-partisanship, YET!

 

[Upgrade Dave]

1. Thank You ! (I'm more of a reader than a viewer - I can get to the salient points faster by reading and copy the highlights as notes for self and reposting. So with all of the things I have to do, reviewing a 43 min vid, unfortunately, just had to wait -- LOL). But, Again, many thanks !!!

This is exactly how my mind works too. I can read through long texts but I have no patience for long videos (porn excluded, of course).

 

[QueEx]

This is exactly how my mind works too . . . porn excluded, of course

Great minds . . .

 

[Upgrade Dave]

Great minds . . .

 

[sharkbait28]

My thoughts?



The monied interests made sure Buddy Roemer was left out of any and all major Republican primary debates.

Damn shame.

The answer is total public campaign financing.

Definitely part of the answer.

Agreed, the only way to get money out of politics is to take the power to bestow largess away from politicians. As long as government has the power to take people's property & freedom and bestow it upon other people, people will be willing to pay to buy political influence. The only solution is to strictly limit government power such that politicians have nothing to give in exchange for support.

You know how I feel about Libertarianism bruh.

But I'm glad we agree on this.

1. Thank You ! (I'm more of a reader than a viewer - I can get to the salient points faster by reading and copy the highlights as notes for self and reposting. So with all of the things I have to do, reviewing a 43 min vid, unfortunately, just had to wait -- LOL). But, Again, many thanks !!!

2. I agree 110% that we need to change, fundamentally, the way campaigns are funded -- from top-down to bottom-up; that it is imperative that we close, if not reverse, the inequitable influence gap between the top 1 and the bottom 99; and, most of all, I agree that the goal must be communicated in ways that forge unity-of-purpose in order to avoid the default: politics of division -- lest this will result, like many other matters of great importance, on the trash heap of great ideas failed.

3. If successful, removing $$$ from campaigns (which I realize is less than saying removing $$$ from politics) I believe would have a ripple effect on most things that touch our lives on a frequent basis.

Thanks for the comment Que. Yeah I know I'm tripping posting a university-hosted lecture like people have time for this kind of stuff lol...but it really is an excellent talk. Lessig really breaks the issue down quite well.

 

[Greed]

Study finds 22,000% Return on Lobbying

http://www.npr.org/blogs/money/2012/01/06/144737864/forget-stocks-or-bonds-invest-in-a-lobbyist

http://papers.ssrn.com/sol3/papers.cfm?abstract_id=1375082

 

[Lamarr]

You know how I feel about Libertarianism bruh.

But I'm glad we agree on this.

yeah, yeah, yeah, You'd be surprised about how much we'd agree on, with honest dialog

 

[QueEx]

Thanks for the comment Que . . . but it really is an excellent talk. Lessig really breaks the issue down quite well.

Oh no question, I agree!