TED
8 HN recommenders · recommended in 17 months, 2013–2026
18:20 · 314K views · Apr 3, 2013
In this TED talk, Lawrence Lessig argues that American politics is corrupted by Congress's dependence on funding from a tiny fraction of citizens. He uses rapid-fire visuals and calls for a bipartisan push to reclaim the Republic.
HN cites it repeatedly as the root-cause argument that money in politics must be fixed before other issues, and as background for his Mayday PAC.
19 comments from Hacker News
All of that, plus tax software companies, such as Intuit lobbying against simplifying the tax code. [LINK] And once again we reach the conclusion that corporate lobbying and donations are the "root of all evil" in American politics, and everything is broken because of it. Larry Lessig has been right all along when he said this needs to be fixed before anything else [1]. Because once this is fixed, everything else should be a lot easier and a lot more in tune with what the People want [2]. [1] this video [2] [LINK] It's just so easy and so cheap for corporations to buy votes right now. Why wouldn't they do it, when the upside is billions of dollars and there's no penalty for it? They can literally buy a vote with a few thousand dollars "donation". Set a limit of $200 (maybe $500 for presidential candidates) political donation per year per person and imprison (6-36 months) anyone who dares to do it any other way, fast and furious, no matter who he is, wealthy billionaire or former president. It's the only way to escape this corruption in the system. Also, I think the U.S. would need a special agency whose sole mission is to look for this type of corruption. In this case, "mission creep" and the purpose of maintaining their jobs would work in the People's favor. The more the agency would do (catch corrupt donors or politicians), the more it could justify its existence. Similar agencies have seen a lot of success in Europe, trying to catch corrupt politicians.
I already do :( I think, it's in best interest of the people in power, that the campaign is so costly. When you look at the presidents of the last decades (I don't know to much US history, to go back to far), they all where already millionaires when they where elected. But you should better watch this one, I don't know if you know Lessig (I think, he is a real patriot): this video In our country, the campaigns are less costly, but until anybody comes to the top of any major party, he must be inwardly corrupted already. I see it this way, that nearly no current leading politician in our country is not already totally corrupted by money and power. I think, Mark Twain had this one right, but I don't think, that it had to be exported, it seems to lay inside the human kind. I think it was already visible in the first republics like Rome. Maybe we are in a similar position today as in Caesars or even Neros time. You should know, that some years ago, even in Europe, rich people started building places to live for millionaires -- apart and secure from the "plebs". They provide for times, when the 99% will no longer hold still. Of course, millionaires are only third class "rich" people in our world. Second class are billionaires.
The root cause of this is the influence of money on our politicians. Symptoms include laws written for the rich and the corporations rather than for the people, causing the continued growth of inequality and a drag on the economy. Support Lawrence Lessig in his efforts to solve this root problem! this video He departs on the second of his New Hampshire Rebellion walks on Sunday.
Here is a Harvard law professor and tech darling (of creative commons), Lawrence Lessig, rebutting your overall point. this video Summary: It feels like we have a government that governs on behalf of those with money because those with money vote first in the fundraising "election" that happens even before a primary election. More money is more votes in the "election" that mattes the most. Those with money get to filter candidates first. edit: Just because money comes from an individual and not directly from a corporation doesn't mean it isn't a pro-corporate/"corporate" contribution.
In 2016, just 400 American families were the source of 50% of all election money that year. If your "candidate" is going to "rein in big tech," how the hell are they supposed to raise money from them? And if they aren't going to do that, where will that money go? Your views seem to be rather ... idealistic. This TED lecture[0] is only 18 minutes long and it offers rather a chilling perspective on any sensible reform. [0] this video