Lessig Campaign and the Change Congress Movement

GoldenShale wrote a follow up to last week's discussion about Lessig running for congress. He writes "Larry Lessig has created a Lessig08 website, and it looks like he is getting serious about running for congress. In his introduction video he proposes the creation of a national "Change Congress" movement which would try to limit the influence of money in the electoral and legislative processes. Having a technologically savvy representative and a clear intellectual leader to head this kind of movement is exactly what we need to counter the last 8 years of corporate dominance in government."

No limits on money

[tjstork]

I think it is fallacious to say money is the problem in the congress. It's not money, its the sheer greed of all involved. Congress has too much power and therefor people want it too much. If you take away the money for elected officials, there will be other, more secret levers that will be unaccountably manipulated. Decisions will be made in stealth, in secret, like the smoke filled back rooms of the old days.

No, it is better, really, to just have money go to whomever and without restriction. That way, we can at least see whom is owned by who, and vote accordingly. Better a billionaire writes a million dollar check to a senator than the same billionaire indirectly invests into a bevy of people to work some foul valve of power in the furnaces of Washington.

Re:Really original thinking here

[Anonymous Coward]

"limit the influence of money" you will run into First Amendment problems.

That's ok, the supreme court has already agreed that money doesn't have rights in civil forfeiture cases where the government simply steals your stuff without a warrant or trial.

Phrase it in that way, and either the supreme court sticks to their guns or they decide that maybe property owners do have rights after all. Either way, we win.

Re:Bush's foreign policy is awesome

[tjstork]

I'm sorry, but that's pretty arrogant. I understand the notion, but you have to look at it this way. We are considered the evil war monger superpower now.

I don't disagree with any of that. That is why I am saying that the USA should not be military allies with anyone. We should bring all of our troops home from everywhere, cut down the size of our army, and focus on trade. We can sit fat and happy behind a mountain of nukes and a missile defense system for our own national security, plus with a sufficient navy to guard our waters and an air force for our air. But we don't need to be operating in 100 countries across the globe. Iraq is the least of our military perception problems.

Re:Bush's foreign policy is awesome

[dpilot]

> The only reason we are in Iraq is oil.

I beg to differ. IMHO, the primary reason we're in Iraq is so we can have a "sufficiently major and long-lasting" war. After all, you can't be a "wartime President" without a war, and it's really hard to make executive power grabs without using war and national security as a pretext. So we're at war in Iraq, in order to be at war, in order to "enhance" executive power.

Beyond that, Iraq was just too attractive:
Afghanistan was (incorrectly) perceived as not being major enough or long-lasting enough.
Iraq has oil, always a selling point for Texans. (I didn't say oil wasn't A reason, just not THE reason.)
Iraq has been a thorn in various peoples' sides ever since Gulf War I.
An Iraq war redresses "sins of the father" - ie GHWB not finishing the job.
An Iraq war demonstrates "America Unbound", (As the book says, unbound by agreements with enemies and allies, alike.) willing and capable to go it alone, while pretending to head a coalition.

> the President's job is to kiss as much ass as possible.

Seems to me that this President's efforts have been to reverse that statement.