THE Problem withMoney in POLITICS Republic, Lost2012            17 Nov
<1>
theproblem
Once upon a tim!..
Lester -land
Lesterland
Lesterland144,000
Lesterland.05%
to run in Lester election                      must do                   General election                        well in  ...
what   we can  say aboutLesterland:
1.
Lester election   General election   Lesters           Citizens    vote               votepower
2.
(obviously)
dependence upon the lesters
subtleunderstatedcamouflaged
bending
to keepthe lesters   happy
3.
reform
that angers
Lesters
(highly)unlikely
Lester -land
3
(1)
USA     =Lesterland
USA   twoelections
to run in  $$$ election                    must do                 General election                      well in   “Funder...
there  rjust as few
(relevant)“Funders”
asthere  r
“Lesters”
really  ?
“.05”?
.3%
.055%
.01%
.0003%
132 Americans    .000042%60% of superpac $
.3%/.055%/.01%
.26%/.05%/.01%
“The Funders”“The Funders”    are not   are our   are not“The People”   “The” “Lesters”
Like    say   aboutLesterland:
say  aboutUSA-land:
1.
$$$ election   General election“Funders”         Citizens   vote             vote
2.
(obviously)
dependence  upon the“the funders”
subtleunderstatedcamouflaged
bending
to keepthe funders   happy
30-70%
“sixth sense”
shape-shifters
“always  lean to the green”
“he was not anenvironmentalist”
3.
reform
that angers
“Thefunders”
(highly)unlikely
USA     =Lesterland
(2)
USAworse thanLesterland
Lesterland
Aristocracy     of      s
(possible)the Lesters   act 4the good oflesterland
ourland
thisland
USA-land
the Lesters   act 4the lesters
shiftingcoalitions
~public interest
USAworse thanLesterland
(3)
whateverone says  about
Lester-land.     .
Lester(In Our)   land
Lester(Our)  land
USA(Our)        land
conflictingdependence
corruption
corruption  relative toFramers’ baseline
A RepublicRepresentative Democracy
The People:& so would         e m     b l the  r o publicp  good be
c Republic, s  ongreshas evolveda differentdependence
The People    The  Funder$
a dependence
different &conflicting
solong as
“The Funders”“The Funders”    are not   are not   are not“The People”“The People”
thiscorruption   has an   effect
(1)
Americansbelieve
(Americans are right)
Americansbelieve
“money buys results in Congress”
75%
81%71%
(2)
that belieferodestrust
9%
moretrusted  than
(3)
that  erosion   erodesparticipation
“no matter who wins,corporate interests will still have too much power and   prevent real change”
notjustkids
vast majority did not vote
40%did not vote
b/c ofthisbelief
</1>
<2>
thesolution
systemicproblem:
“The Funders”“The Funders”   are not   are not   are not“The People”“The People”
systemicsolution:
“The Funders”“The Funders”   are not   are not   are not“The People”“The People”
“The Funders”“The Funders”     are    are not“The People”“The People”
givethema way
fund w/ofaust
w/oselling their    souls
w/oalienating America
oneonLYway:way:c
“citizenfundedcampaigns”
small dollar  fundedcampaigns
opt
small    $$$$$contributions    only
amplified
manyversions
matching grants
+ NYC
tax credits
vouchers
or all three together...
each fundsbottom   up
“The Funders”     each      =“The People”
money election0-20%   20-40%   40-60%   60-80%   80-95%   95-99%   top 1%
general                 election0-20%   20-40%   40-60%   60-80%   80-95%   95-99%   top 1%
citizenfundedcampaigns
only c i t i z e n sall citizens
if
small$$$$$only
believe
notb/c$$$$
</2>
<3>
thequestion
is   itpossible   ?
“Farm league
Members  StaffersBureaucrats
increasingly    commonbusiness model
focused
lifeaftergov’t
life aslobbyists
50%
42%
1,452%
everyonedepends
systemsurviving
howpossible?
cancerdoesn’t  cure itself.
won’t  becured w/
dinky littlereforms
movement
unlike anywe’ve seen
taking on a
corruption
</3>
<4>
theopportunity
O U T-RAGE
O U T-RAGE
INSPIRA  TION
and in theprocess
millionsrecruited
to this cause.
INCREDIBLYIMPORTANT
FIRST STEP
beginning
/end
this framing
FIRST STEP
these means
brilliantFIRST STEPs
BUILT     ARECOGNITION
something must be  done!
GALLUP
of course turnto the campaigns
obama
romney
onlyissue
~
first time
as long aswe can see
Needasknow:
next?
what  r thenextsteps
4  thismovement
message
means
4 they mustevolve
.
thischange
must b:
cross-partisan
/bi-partisan
cuta cross-partisan   lines
1
civilwar
cannotwin
ifpolarized
ifdivided
means:
we must   speakso others can    hear
speak,  soothers can
speak,  so         hear.others can
heretoo.
discipline
speakso others can    hear
</4>
<5>
theways
1: power
out            side      l  “chattarati”       DC      e      f      t
out         side exopolitics   politics
politics ofpoliticians
s demanding       citizenthat            change       politics
many
&increasingly  frequent
waves“open-source”   energy
9 81 9
2009
2011
2012
power
ground up
new
GNU
ifthere’s hope
out         side exopolitics
problem:
out           side         i z e d   l a rexopoliticsp o
likeeveryone
politicians
politicians  parties
politicians  parties   media
politicians  parties    media   .org’s
practicebusiness model   business   model of      of polarization     hate
allprofit
the morewe divide.
polarized  culture& v. cool
answer:
• message
• method
2: message
corruption
The         Funder$The People
only
/
corruption
•Farm league shut•citizen funded campaigns•citizen united reformed•transparency enhanced
bold
~puny
work.
3: method
Dear Congress,Please cure yourself.Please.Pretty please.Yours truly,U.S.
act    withconsequence
2
(1)cross-partisan
(2) only thingthat has worked
Neverbefore
closeonce
1911
Congress  refused   to fixthe senate
when1 state   shy
Congressagreed to  refused   to fixthe senate
17th Amendment
force change
every newstate
onestatecloser
every newstate
consequence
SO
Exopoliticians,    unite behind   the AA Act,& force change w/ a(v) convention
</5>
<end>
Thedemocracy  crisis
The    /democracy  crisis
TheRepublic Crisis
Lester -land
Rep-ublic,  if you cankeep
A Republic
Representative Democracy
lost
act
get itback
how?
discipline
CHARITY OF THATMOVEMENT
WE
US
THIS
needthatnow.
</END>
Flickr Photos     - credits    Capitol - cow tools Wall St - Flickr/f-l-e-xAL Gore Hero - Steve RhodesTrashCan - Steve Joh...
THIS WORKLICENSED:
things you can        do now: by• join Rootstrikers.org txting ROOT to: +1-413-315-5062• tweet $-in-politics stories      ...
Lawrence Lessig's "The Problem with Money in Politics" at UCLA on November 17, 2012
Lawrence Lessig's "The Problem with Money in Politics" at UCLA on November 17, 2012
Lawrence Lessig's "The Problem with Money in Politics" at UCLA on November 17, 2012
Lawrence Lessig's "The Problem with Money in Politics" at UCLA on November 17, 2012
Lawrence Lessig's "The Problem with Money in Politics" at UCLA on November 17, 2012
Lawrence Lessig's "The Problem with Money in Politics" at UCLA on November 17, 2012
Lawrence Lessig's "The Problem with Money in Politics" at UCLA on November 17, 2012
Lawrence Lessig's "The Problem with Money in Politics" at UCLA on November 17, 2012
Lawrence Lessig's "The Problem with Money in Politics" at UCLA on November 17, 2012
Lawrence Lessig's "The Problem with Money in Politics" at UCLA on November 17, 2012
Lawrence Lessig's "The Problem with Money in Politics" at UCLA on November 17, 2012
Lawrence Lessig's "The Problem with Money in Politics" at UCLA on November 17, 2012
Lawrence Lessig's "The Problem with Money in Politics" at UCLA on November 17, 2012
Lawrence Lessig's "The Problem with Money in Politics" at UCLA on November 17, 2012
Lawrence Lessig's "The Problem with Money in Politics" at UCLA on November 17, 2012
Lawrence Lessig's "The Problem with Money in Politics" at UCLA on November 17, 2012
Lawrence Lessig's "The Problem with Money in Politics" at UCLA on November 17, 2012
Lawrence Lessig's "The Problem with Money in Politics" at UCLA on November 17, 2012
Lawrence Lessig's "The Problem with Money in Politics" at UCLA on November 17, 2012
Lawrence Lessig's "The Problem with Money in Politics" at UCLA on November 17, 2012
Lawrence Lessig's "The Problem with Money in Politics" at UCLA on November 17, 2012
Lawrence Lessig's "The Problem with Money in Politics" at UCLA on November 17, 2012
Lawrence Lessig's "The Problem with Money in Politics" at UCLA on November 17, 2012
Lawrence Lessig's "The Problem with Money in Politics" at UCLA on November 17, 2012
Lawrence Lessig's "The Problem with Money in Politics" at UCLA on November 17, 2012
Lawrence Lessig's "The Problem with Money in Politics" at UCLA on November 17, 2012
Lawrence Lessig's "The Problem with Money in Politics" at UCLA on November 17, 2012
Lawrence Lessig's "The Problem with Money in Politics" at UCLA on November 17, 2012
Lawrence Lessig's "The Problem with Money in Politics" at UCLA on November 17, 2012
Lawrence Lessig's "The Problem with Money in Politics" at UCLA on November 17, 2012
Lawrence Lessig's "The Problem with Money in Politics" at UCLA on November 17, 2012
Lawrence Lessig's "The Problem with Money in Politics" at UCLA on November 17, 2012
Lawrence Lessig's "The Problem with Money in Politics" at UCLA on November 17, 2012
Lawrence Lessig's "The Problem with Money in Politics" at UCLA on November 17, 2012
Lawrence Lessig's "The Problem with Money in Politics" at UCLA on November 17, 2012
Lawrence Lessig's "The Problem with Money in Politics" at UCLA on November 17, 2012
Lawrence Lessig's "The Problem with Money in Politics" at UCLA on November 17, 2012
Lawrence Lessig's "The Problem with Money in Politics" at UCLA on November 17, 2012
Lawrence Lessig's "The Problem with Money in Politics" at UCLA on November 17, 2012
Lawrence Lessig's "The Problem with Money in Politics" at UCLA on November 17, 2012
Lawrence Lessig's "The Problem with Money in Politics" at UCLA on November 17, 2012
Lawrence Lessig's "The Problem with Money in Politics" at UCLA on November 17, 2012
Lawrence Lessig's "The Problem with Money in Politics" at UCLA on November 17, 2012
Lawrence Lessig's "The Problem with Money in Politics" at UCLA on November 17, 2012
Lawrence Lessig's "The Problem with Money in Politics" at UCLA on November 17, 2012
Lawrence Lessig's "The Problem with Money in Politics" at UCLA on November 17, 2012
Lawrence Lessig's "The Problem with Money in Politics" at UCLA on November 17, 2012
Lawrence Lessig's "The Problem with Money in Politics" at UCLA on November 17, 2012
Upcoming SlideShare
Loading in …5
×

Lawrence Lessig's "The Problem with Money in Politics" at UCLA on November 17, 2012

11,175 views

Published on

Lessig uses several really cool fonts, which we had to substitute for universal, less cool ones for the PowerPoint file. Check out corruptionismyissue.org for a list of these fonts.

Note: We transcribed the talk in full in this file. Each slide contains the portion of the actual speech that accompanied that visual.

Published in: News & Politics
1 Comment
4 Likes
Statistics
Notes
  • :)
       Reply 
    Are you sure you want to  Yes  No
    Your message goes here
No Downloads
Views
Total views
11,175
On SlideShare
0
From Embeds
0
Number of Embeds
42
Actions
Shares
0
Downloads
54
Comments
1
Likes
4
Embeds 0
No embeds

No notes for slide
  • So thank you, and welcome to this event, and I&apos;m very honored and happy to have a chance to talk to this movement, which in many ways began here but has spread across the country.
  • And I want to start by talking...
  • ...about what I think of is the problem. And I&apos;m told that out here, when you tell a story,
  • you need to begin with an image like this: so here we are: Once upon at time there was a place called Image of Cinderella Castle at Night: copyrighted alt: http://www.fotopedia.com/items/flickr-4535885901
  • &quot;Lester-land&quot;. Now you don&apos;t know from the introduction because it&apos;s a secret, so please don&apos;t tell anybody, but my first name is actually &quot;Lester,&quot; so I&apos;m allowed to make fun of Lesters, and I want to make fun of Lesters for a moment in describing the problem, by understanding this place called &quot;Lesterland.&quot;
  • So Lesterland looks a lot like the United States. Like the United States, it has about 300 million people, and of those 300 and some million people h Image of AVHRR View of the USA: http:// www.solarviews.com/cap/earth/usa.htm
  • 144,000 are named Lester. So that means that Image of Lester Simpsons avatar @ make your own Simpsons avatar: http://www.simpsonsmovie.com/main.html Image of AVHRR View of the USA: http:// www.solarviews.com/cap/earth/usa.htm
  • 0.05% of Lesterland is named &quot;Lester.&quot; Image of Lester Simpsons avatar @ make your own Simpsons avatar: http://www.simpsonsmovie.com/main.html Image of AVHRR View of the USA: http:// www.solarviews.com/cap/earth/usa.htm
  • Now Lesters in Lesterland have this extraordinary power. There are two elections in every election cycle in Lesterland: There is a general election and there is a Lester election. And in the Lester election, the Lesters get to vote, and in the general election, all citizens over 18 (if you have an ID in some states) get to vote. But here&apos;s the trick: to run in the general election, you must do extremely well in the Lester election. You don&apos;t necessarily have to win, but you must do extremely well. Now this is a picture of democracy in Lesterland. Image of Lester Simpsons avatar @ make your own Simpsons avatar: http://www.simpsonsmovie.com/main.html Image of AVHRR View of the USA: http:// www.solarviews.com/cap/earth/usa.htm
  • What can we say about democracy in Lesterland?
  • We can say, number 1, as the Supreme Court said in Citizens United, the people have the ultimate influence over elected officials in Lesterland, because, after all, Citizens United v. Federal Election Commission. Supreme Court of the United States. 2009. docstoc. http://www.docstoc.com/docs/23497308/Supreme-Court-Decision-on-Corporate-Campaign-Spending---Citizens-United-vs-FEC
  • there is a general election. But there is that general election only after the Lesters have had their way with the candidates who hope to run and win in that general election. Image of Lester Simpsons avatar @ make your own Simpsons avatar: http://www.simpsonsmovie.com/main.html Image of AVHRR View of the USA: http:// www.solarviews.com/cap/earth/usa.htm
  • Number 2,
  • obviously,
  • this dependence upon the Lesters produces a
  • subtle, understated, we might say camouflaged,
  • bending
  • to keep the Lesters happy.
  • And, number 3,
  • reform
  • that angers
  • the Lesters is, we might say,
  • unlikely.
  • OK, so that&apos;s Lesterland.
  • There are three things I want you to understand now that you understand Lesterland.
  • Number 1:
  • the United States is Lesterland; the United States is Lesterland.
  • The United States also looks like this, it also has two elections. Image of AVHRR View of the USA: http:// www.solarviews.com/cap/earth/usa.htm
  • There is a general election; the other we should call the &quot;money election.&quot; In the general election, all citizens over 18 (if you have an ID in some states) get to vote. In the &quot;money election,&quot; it&apos;s the funders who get to vote: the relevant funders of the campaign. And, as in Lesterland, if you want to run in the general election, you must do extremely well in the money election. You don&apos;t necessarily have to win, but you must do extremely well. Image of AVHRR View of the USA: http:// www.solarviews.com/cap/earth/usa.htm
  • And here&apos;s the key: Image of an old key: copyrighted alt: http://openclipart.org/detail/61171/old-key-by-j_alves
  • there are just as few
  • relevant funders in our democracy
  • as there are
  • &quot;Lesters&quot; in Lesterland. And you say
  • &quot;really?!&quot;
  • Point zero five percent? Well, here are the numbers: in this election cycle,
  • point three percent of Americans--one third of one percent have given $200 or more in an election. Stat: Recalculate using http://www.opensecrets.org/overview/donordemographics.php
  • Point zero five five percent have given the maximum amount to any congressional or presidential candidate. Stat: Recalculate using http://www.opensecrets.org/overview/donordemographics.php
  • Point zero one percent have given $10,000 or more in the election cycle. [additional note not in talk: 26,783 individuals (or slightly less than one in ten thousand Americans) each contributed more than $10,000.] Stats: Recalculate using http://www.opensecrets.org/overview/donordemographics.php
  • Point zero zero zero three percent have given $100,000 or more. Stat: Recalculate using http://www.opensecrets.org/overview/donordemographics.php
  • And my favorite number: point zero zero zero zero four two percent--for those of you doing the math, you know that is 132 Americans--gave 60% of the superpac money that was used in this last election cycle. Stat: http://www.demos.org/publication/election-spending-2012-post-election-analysis-federal-election-commission-data  
  • So I look at this range--point three to point zero one, I&apos;m a lawyer--and I think it is fair for me to say it&apos;s about
  • point zero five percent who are the relevant funders in these elections
  • and these funders are our &quot;Lesters.&quot;
  • Like you can say about Lesterland,
  • this is what you can say about USAland:
  • of course the Supreme Court was right: the people have the ultimate influence over elected officials, Citizens United v. Federal Election Commission. Supreme Court of the United States. 2009. docstoc. http://www.docstoc.com/docs/23497308/Supreme-Court-Decision-on-Corporate-Campaign-Spending---Citizens-United-vs-FEC
  • because there is a general election; but, as in Lesterland, only after the funders have had their way with the candidates who wish to win in that general election. Image of AVHRR View of the USA: http:// www.solarviews.com/cap/earth/usa.htm
  • And number 2,
  • obviously,
  • this dependence upon the funders produces a
  • subtle, understated, we might say camouflaged,
  • bending
  • to keep the funders happy. Candidates for Congress, and members of Congress, spend between
  • 30 and 70% of their time raising money to get to power, or to get their party back into power. And, as they do that, they develop, as any of us would, Lessig, Lawrence. Republic, Lost: How Money Corrupts Congress--and a Plan to Stop It. New York, NY: Hachette Book Group, 2011. *Updated stat on time spent fundraising: http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2013/01/08/call-time-congressional-fundraising_n_2427291.html
  • a &quot;sixth sense,&quot; a constant awareness about how what they do might affect their ability to raise money. They become, in the words of the X-Files,
  • &quot;shape-shifters,&quot; as they constantly adjust their views in light of what they know will help them raise money, not in issues 1 to 10, but in issues 11 to 1000.
  • Leslie Byrne, a Democrat from Wisconsin, describes that when she went to Congress, she was told by a colleague, quote &quot;Always lean to the green.&quot; And to clarify, she went on, Image of Leslie L Byrne: not found Alt: http://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/File:Leslie_L_Byrne_at_podium_DD-SC-07-29431.JPEG
  • &quot;He was not an environmentalist.&quot; Schram, Martin. Speaking Freely. Center for Responsive Politics, 1995.
  • And then point 3:
  • Reform
  • that angers
  • the funders in our system we can say is
  • unlikely.
  • So, in this sense, I want to say the United States is Lesterland.
  • Here&apos;s the second point:
  • the United States is worse than Lesterland, worse than Lesterland.
  • Because you can imagine in Lesterland, if we Lesters got a letter from the government that said to us, &quot;You guys get to pick who are the candidates that will run in the general election.&quot; You know, there are Lesters from every class--there are black Lesters, there are white Lesters--not many women Lesters, but OK, let&apos;s put that detail aside for a second--there are Lesters from every class, you can imagine there would be a kind of
  • aristocracy of us Lesters--right, it&apos;s at least possible we would think we need to Image of Lester Simpsons avatar @ make your own Simpsons avatar: http://www.simpsonsmovie.com/main.html
  • act in the good of Lesterland--it&apos;s our job, its our purpose, it&apos;s our role, they look up to us Lesters to help them pick the best candidates who will run.
  • But in our land,
  • in this land,
  • in USA-land,
  • the Lesters act for the Lesters,
  • because the shifting coalitions of interests that comprise the point zero five percent are formed on the basis of whatever issue is just over the horizon. So, if it is climate change legislation, you know that it is coal companies and oil companies that comprise a significant portion of the Lesters. If it&apos;s health care, you know that it is insurance companies and pharmaceutical companies and doctors who form a significant component of the Lesters. Whatever the issue is, whatever the issue has to be blocked, whatever reform has to be stopped, you can read back from that and understand who makes up the Lesters. And when they gather together and make their contribution, they are not asking for legislation
  • in the public interest. They are asking for legislation in their interest.
  • So, in this sense, the United States is worse than Lesterland.
  • And, finally, point number 3:
  • whatever one wants to say about
  • Lesterland,
  • in our land,
  • in our version of Lesterland,
  • in USAland,
  • this conflicting dependence on the Lesters versus the people,
  • is corruption--corruption.
  • Now I don&apos;t mean it&apos;s brown-paper-bag corruption, with cash secreted to members of Congress, Image: © licensed through istockphoto
  • I don&apos;t mean is Rob Blagojevich corruption, where people are engaging in criminal acts, you see, I&apos;m willing to stipulate that the complaint I have has no criminality attached to it at all. I&apos;m willing to assume everything I&apos;m describing is perfectly legal--perfectly legal. But even if it&apos;s perfectly legal, Image of Rod Blagojevich: http://www.moonbattery.com/archives/2008/12/illinois_govern.html
  • it is still corruption relative to the baseline that our framers gave us.
  • Our framers gave us what they called a republic. And by &quot;a republic,&quot; they meant a &quot;representative democracy.&quot; And by a Image of Constitution mural: http://www.archives.gov/exhibits/charters/charters_mural_constitution_b.html#
  • &quot;representative democracy, as Madison described in Federalist 52, they meant a government that would have a branch that would be Image of Federalist Paper: http://www.xtimeline.com/evt/view.aspx?id=682843
  • they meant a government that would have a branch that would be (quote) &quot;dependent on the people alone.&quot; Image of United States Capitol Building: not found Alt: http://www.istockphoto.com/stock-photo-17778833-the-united-states-capitol-building-washington-dc.php
  • So here&apos;s the model of government: they have the people, and the government (isn&apos;t this cool, the way it bounces like that)--the people and the government. Exclusive dependency, exclusive dependency, and so would the public good be found, by that exclusive dependency. But here&apos;s the problem:
  • Congress has evolved a different dependence--
  • no longer a dependence upon the people alone, but, increasingly, a dependence upon the funders. Image of capitol dome: http://dir.coolclips.com/History/United_States/Landmarks_and_Monuments/Capitols/Capitol_building_arch0215.html
  • And this is a dependence, too.
  • It is different and conflicting from
  • a dependence on the people alone,
  • however, so long as
  • &quot;the funders&quot; are not &quot;the people.&quot; This is corruption--corruption of the design that was to be this constitutional democracy.
  • Now this corruption has an effect.
  • Its first effect is that,
  • Americans believe because of it--
  • and I think Americans are right to believe this, but this is a separate question--let&apos;s just focus on what Americans believe.
  • Americans believe that
  • money &quot;buys results in Congress&quot;--quote, unquote. [see: Lawrence Lessig, Republic, Lost. Original from a survey by Global Strategy Group (January 11, 2011) on file with Lessig.]
  • 75% of Americans, according to a poll we conducted for the book I published last Fall. [see: Lawrence Lessig, Republic, Lost]
  • So here it is folks, the one thing we Americans all believe: money buys results in Congress. Image of Republican/Democrat logos: http://vicentemanera.files.wordpress.com/2010/10/republican_democrat_logos1.jpg
  • Leading to point number 2:
  • that belief erodes trust in the institution of Congress.
  • ABC and the New York Times found last year that 9% of America had confidence in Congress. note this is a CBS/New York Times poll: 9%. Now, we should put that in context: It is certainly the case, it is certainly the case, at the time of the American Revolution, a higher proportion of Americans Zeleny, Jeff, and Megan Thee-Brenan. “New Poll Finds Deep Distrust of Government.” The New York Times. Oct 2011. http://www.nytimes.com/2011/10/26/us/politics/poll-finds-anxiety-on-the-economy-fuels-volatility-in-the-2012-race.html?_r=0 Image of US Capitol Building: not found. Alt: http://www.istockphoto.com/stock-photo-17778833-the-united-states-capitol-building-washington-dc.php
  • had confidence in the British Crown than who have confidence in our Congress today [see: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Loyalist_%28American_Revolution%29 ]. Image of King George III: http://southcarolina1670.wordpress.com/2010/10/26/george-iii-on -how-not-to-handle-a-crisis/ Image of US Capitol Building: not found. Alt: http://www.isto ckphoto.com/stock-photo-17778833-the-united-states-capitol-building-washington-dc.php
  • And that leads to point number 3.
  • This erosion erodes participation in this system.
  • Rock The Vote, which in 2008, organized and turned out the largest number of young voters in the history of voting in America (we still don’t have the numbers from this election), found that in 2010, a significant number of their young voters were just not going to show up. So they polled them to ask them why. And the number one reason by far, two to one over the second highest reason, was Image: not found Alt: rockthevote.org
  • no matter who wins, corporate interests will still have too much power and prevent real change. [see: http://www.rockthevote.com/about/about-young-voters/polling/ Nationwide Baseline pdf, question 15]
  • And it’s not just kids.
  • The vast majority who could have voted in 2010, did not vote, in part, at least, because of this belief, and even in this election,
  • forty percent did not vote [see: http://elections.gmu.edu/Turnout_2010G.html ], in part, at least,
  • I suggest, because of this belief. Corruption.
  • And these are its consequences.
  • Ok, so,
  • what’s the solution to that corruption?
  • There’s a systemic problem here:
  • It is that The Funders are not The People.
  • There’s a systemic solution
  • to that problem.
  • It is to make The Funders The People.
  • To give them a way - I know, it makes it sound like I mean to give Congress away, and nobody would take Congress, so I don’t mean that. But I mean, to give Congress one way
  • to fund their campaigns at least
  • without selling their souls
  • and thereby without alienating America.
  • And the one way, and I think the only way, to do this is to openly and firmly and loudly yell,
  • “ We believe in citizen funded campaigns.” Now, what is that, right?
  • These are systems of small dollar funded campaigns. And at least right now, they are systems for Image of cash money: not found Alt: http://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/File:Hundred_dollar_bill_04.jpg
  • candidates to get to opt in to a world where they agree
  • to take small dollar funded contributions only,
  • and the system amplifies those contributions, to make it so they can win campaigns, never taking large contributions from anybody.
  • many ways to do this, but the most striking fact about politics circa 2011 Now there are many versions of this,
  • there’s matching grant systems,
  • such as Arizona [see: http://www.cleanelections101.com /], or Maine [see: http://www.mainelegislature.org/ legis/statutes/21-A/title21-Asec1125.html ], or Connecticut [see: http://se arch.cga.state.ct.us/sur s/sur/htm/chap157.htm] - Connecticut adopted their syst em, in its first year, 78% of the elected representatives were elected using the system where they took small contributions only, never had to take any large contributions, Democrats and Republicans alike [see: http://www.ct.gov/seec/lib/seec/publications/2010_citizens_election_program_report_final .pdf ]. And New York City has a similar system [see: http://www.nyccfb.info /], which now migh t become the model for the whole of New York Stat e [see: http://www.nyt imes.com/2012/12/02/opinion/sunday/gov-cuomo-and-campaign-finance-reform.html ]. Image of US: not found
  • There are tax credit systems,
  • like Oregon, to give people the ability to contribute small dollars to candidates who take small contributions and then get a credit on their tax system see: [http://www.oregon.gov/dor/PERTAX/pages/personal-income-tax-overview/credits.aspx ] Image of Oregon: http://www.licecompany.com/Oregon_Map.jpg
  • There are voucher proposals.
  • first proposed by Bruce Ackerman and Ian Ayres [see: http://yalepress.yale.edu/yupbooks/book.asp?isbn=9780300101492] Image of Voting with Dollars: http://ecx.images-amazon.com/images/I/41DIKlK30nL._SL500_AA300_ .jpg
  • I’ve described a proposal in my book, Republic, Lost, Image of Republic, Lost: http://cdn.tripwiremagazine.com/wp-content/uploads/2012/04/us-capitol-building-dollar-bills.jpg
  • which I call the Grant and Franklin project, where everybody gets a 50 dollar voucher they can give to any candidate, or a part of it to any candidate, who agrees that he or she will fund his or her campaign with vouchers only, plus contributions of up to a hundred dollars from any citizen [see: http://lessig.tumblr.com/post/14357153028/the-grant-and-franklin-project] . So Grant - 50, Franklin - 100. Image of Franklin: http://ak3.picdn.net/shutterstock/videos/1358605/preview/stock-footage-mo ve-into-extreme-close-up-of-an-american-one-hundred-dollar-bill.jpg Image of Grant: http://us.123rf.com/400wm/400/400/akova/akova1011/akova1 01100166/8220158-portrait-of-u-s-statesman-inventor-and-diplomat-ulysses-s-grant-as-he-looks-on-fifty-dollar-bill-obv.jpg
  • And I think, most importantly now, we have a proposal introduced, just this week, the American Anti-Corruption Act [see: http://anticorruptionact.org/] , which has a tax credit to fund a voucher program of a hundred dollars to make it so candidates can opt to take small dollar contributions and have an extraordinary resource and source for those small contributions. Image of The American Anti-Corruption Act logo: http://anticorruptionact.org/
  • Or there are proposals that drop them all together.
  • Congressman Sarbanes from Maryland has a proposal called the Grassroots Democracy Act, which has a matching fund proposal, it has a tax credit proposal, and it has a pilot for the voucher proposal all in one low-priced package [see: http://sarbanes.house.gov/free_details.asp?id=123] . Ok. Image of Grassroots Democracy Act logo: http://24.media.tumblr.com/tumblr_mdjrrdQTfL1qdlgq 4o2_400.jpg
  • But each of these systems funds from the bottom up.
  • Each of them is aiming to reduce the gap between The Funders and The People.
  • And each of them has as its objective to reverse the extraordinary inequality that exists in our system now where the top one percent have ten times the per capita influence that the bottom 99 percent have [see: http://lessig.tumblr.com/post/19188135593/the-economist-weighs-in] ,
  • to aspire to the ideal which is at the center of the way we allocate votes, which is one person, one vote.
  • That is what citizen funded campaigns means.
  • Only citizens fund campaigns, and all citizens fund campaigns.
  • And if we had that,
  • if we had a system where candidates took small dollar contributions only,
  • then we all could believe as we desperately want to believe, that whenever Congress did something crazy, it was either because there were too many Democrats, or because there were too many Republicans, Image of I Want to Believe: http://jorge8adotcom.files.wordpress.com/2011/09/i_want_to_believe2.jpg
  • but not because of the money. Because we would have removed that cynical assumption from the only plausible way to interpret what Congress does because we would have made it so that the funders were all of us.
  • Ok, now
  • the question, though, that gets constantly presented when people like me and others, hundreds of others, push this kind of proposal is
  • is it even possible, to imagine Congress embracing such an idea? Is it even possible? And there are moment where I wonder whether it’s even possible.
  • This man made me the most cynical I could possible be about this. This is Jim Cooper, Democrat from Virginia, man who has been in Congress for as long as about twenty other members of Congress. He said to me when I was interviewing him for my book, “You have to understand, Capitol Hill has become a kind of farm league for K St.” K St., where the lobbyists work. What he meant was, Image of Jim Cooper: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/File:Jim_Cooper.jpg
  • members and staffers and bureaucrats
  • have an increasingly common business model,
  • a business model focused
  • on their life after government,
  • their life as lobbyists.
  • A study done by Public Citizen, an advocacy group, found that half the senators and 42 percent of House members who left Congress between 1998 and 2004 became lobbyists. So 50 percent of the Senate between 1998 and 2004, according to Public Citizen [see: http://www.citizen.org/pressroom/pressroomredirect.cfm?ID=1999] , left the Senate to become lobbyists,
  • 42% of the House, and as United Re:public calculated just last spring, the salary increase for those they tracked as they moved from the House to becoming lobbyists was
  • 1,452 percent [see: http://www.republicreport.org/2012/make-it-rain-revolving-door/] . Pretty good business model, even in Washington.
  • So in a system where everybody depends
  • upon this system surviving, so that their retirement is set so their kids can have their education paid, so that their two other vacation houses at least have something to support the mortgage, so this system can survive,
  • how is it possible that we could imagine
  • attacking the cancer which is this beltway, through themselves? Image of a breast cancer cell: http://cdn2-b.examiner.com/sites/default/files/styles/image_content_width/hash/37/ca/37ca087ae46149fbbb87c659a278017f.jpg
  • Because here’s the fact: cancer does not cure itself. It does not cure itself.
  • And it won’t be cured
  • by dinky little reforms, tiny little ideas, tinkering, crumbs at the table, that are being proposed by people who think we just do a tiny little switch, we will magically change this system.
  • Instead, what it needs is a movement
  • unlike any we’ve seen
  • since the civil right’s movement, Image: not found Alt of civil rights protesters: http://www.flickr.com/photos/kheelcenter/5279610622/
  • or the progressive movement. Image of Teddy Roosevelt: Progressive rights movement Date Created/Published: c1912 October 23, photograph taken October 17, 1912. - Library of Congress, Prints and Photographs Division, Bain Collection - Reproduction number: LC-USZ62-78053 (b&amp;w film copy neg.) - Rights Advisory: No known restrictions on publication.
  • Taking on a
  • corruption greater than anything we’ve seen
  • since we ousted George the Third. image:Portrait of King George III http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/File:King_George_III_by_Sir_William_Beechey_%282%29.jpg
  • Ok, now
  • we have
  • an opportunity for that movement,
  • it’s a kind of gift. It was a gift given to us by an unlikely institution, they don’t give many gifts, image of giftbox: stock photo, available on many stock photo/clipart sites http://www.canstockphoto.com/present-box-with-red-bow-vector-7094421.html http://graphicleftovers.com/graphic/1_yxznmtnfndkuanbn.eps/ http://deposi tphotos.com/6481621/stock-illustration-Present-box-with-red -bow.-Vector.html
  • I get the outrage this place, the Supreme Court. It’s a gift given to us in the form of an opinion called Citizens United versus the Federal Election Commission, an opinion that held corporations have an unlimited power to spend whatever they want, independent of political campaigns, to promote or oppose any political candidate [see Opinion: Citizens United v. Federal Election Commission (Docket No. 08-205) : http://www.law.cornell.edu/supct/cert/08-205] . That opinion spark ed extraordinary outrage across the country. Outrage, image of Supreme Court: http://www.clker.com/clipart-146547.html
  • which was across the political spectrum. So the Washington Post a week after the opinion came out found that 84 percent of Democrats opposed the opinion, 81 percent of Independents, and 76 percent of Republicans [see: Washington Post-ABC News poll Feb 4th-8th, 2010 http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2010/02/17/AR2010021701151.html] .
  • Outraged, at the idea that corporations would have this role in our political process. And that outrage,
  • translated into inspiration, as an extraordinary range of new organizations
  • like Move to Amend or Free Speech or People or 99 Rise began to embrace this cause, http://movetoamend.org http://freespeech forpe ople.org http://www.99rise.org
  • and joining all sorts of organizations that have been around for much longer than this opinion, Logos of these orgs: http://moveon.org http://amend2012. org http://coffeepar tyusa.com http://citi zen.org http://www.pfaw.o rg
  • demanding that this decision be reversed.
  • And in the process, in the process of these organizations taking up this cause,
  • millions have been recruited
  • to this cause. Millions. And many of the people in this room are responsible, for that extraordinary activity of recruitment and awakening that has led America to recognize exactly what the problem here is.
  • This is incredibly important. It will be remembered, this movement, as the first steps of the most important progressive movement we’ve seen in America in a hundred years,
  • as the first steps,
  • as the beginning, because these steps can’t be
  • the end to that movement.
  • This framing,
  • this framing alone image of “Corporations are NOT PEOPLE T Shirt: http://skreened.com/scarebaby/corporations-are-not-people-tshirt
  • or money is not speech images: dollar sign, http://openclipart.fabricatorz.com/detail/167782/money-7-by-dripsandcastle ; is not equal, http://openclipart.org/tags/is%20not%20equal; speech, http://vector.us/bro wse/249153/speech_9
  • is the first step
  • these means
  • the idea of calling upon congress to pass an amendment Image of website from http://www.united4thepeople.org/local.html
  • is a first step, a brilliant first step, because what these means did was to
  • build the recognition in America
  • that something must be done, and we saw the product of that recognition
  • &lt;slide was missing&gt; in a pole that was conducted by Gallup in July of this year [see: http://www.gallup.com/poll/159035/congress-retains-low-honesty-rating.aspx?utm_source=alert&amp;utm_medium=email&amp;utm_campaign=syndication&amp;utm_content=morelink&amp;utm_term=All%20Gallup%20Headlines] . When Gallup asked Americans what was to be the priority for the next president, and on that list of ten priorities, number two on that list was reducing corruption in the Federal Government, number two! 87% of Americans identified this issue, and of course they weren’t thinking about Rob Blagojevich, they weren’t thinking about Randy Duke Cunningham, they weren’t thinking about bribery or criminal behavior. What they were thinking about was the unbelievable amounts of money in the political system, the sort of recognition which this movement had made salient to them
  • now of course when you turn to the actual political campaigns
  • that issue was invisible
  • neither Obama image of Obama’s campaign website: http://www.barackobama.com
  • nor Romney on their web page even mentioned this issue
  • and indeed it was the only issue on the top ten
  • which was not mentioned anywhere in a political campaign, and more troublingly
  • its the first time in
  • as long as we can see where an issue on that top ten list was not at the center of either the democrat or republicans platform for addressing the issues America thinks need to be addressed. So this is a measure of your success, a success you should be proud of and you should celebrate.
  • But now we need to ask
  • what’s next, what’s next
  • what are the next steps
  • for this movement
  • what’s the message
  • what are the means?
  • For it’s my view they must evolve
  • This message must evolve image: http://skreened.com/scarebaby/corporations-are-not-people-tshirt
  • and here’s the point
  • this change
  • this attack on that cancer Image source See Slide 176
  • must be fundamentally
  • cross partisan
  • I don’t mean bi-partisan in a kind of “kum ba yah, we all agree with each other” we don’t agree with each other,
  • but I mean it cuts across partisan lines
  • because there’s been one time in American history where we have attempted a fundamental reform like this that was not cross-partisan,
  • that was 150 years ago in the context of a civil war. Instead every other major movement to change the fundamental way in which government functions was essentially cross-partisan. And in a world where we’re calling for an amendment that requires 38 states to join with us image of Civil War battlefield: www.civilwar.org/battlefields/antietam/history/antietam-federal-flank.html
  • we can not win
  • if the issue is polarized,
  • if the nation is divided about this question
  • and what that means is
  • we have to learn to speak so the other side can hear, speak so the other side can hear. And of this I was reminded after talking to a friend who studies the history of the civil rights movement, that there’s a parallel in the civil rights movement. If you think about the civil rights movement at the end of the 1950’s and the beginning of the 1960’s, the fundamental struggle the movement had was how do they get people to show up, to turn out, to express their anger and frustration with the existing injustice of the American system, and to demand a change. And there were two schools.
  • There was a school associated with Malcom X, that said the way to get them to show up was to tell them to be incredibly angry, to be furious, and to demand the changes which hundreds of years ago should have been granted to African-Americans, and to use whatever means including, if it came to it, violence, to demand this change. And in response to that completely plausible, at the time seemed eminently sensible, recommendation for how to bring about and demand the changes that African-Americans were entitled to, Martin Luther King had a different view. King’s view was, look, you can get 12% or 14% of Americans to show up and demand change, but 14% of America is not enough. Instead he counseled a movement images: Malcolm X, http://www.corbisimages.com/Search#p=1&amp;q=malcolm+x; Rev. Martin Luther King, head-and-shoulders portrait, facing right, speaking at a rally in Crawfordville, Georgia].&quot; United Press International telephoto,1965 Oct 11. Prints and Photographs Divison of the Library of Congress.
  • that could speak image: Rev. Martin Luther King, head-and-shoulders portrait, facing right, speaking at a rally in Crawfordville, Georgia].&quot; United Press International telephoto,1965 Oct 11. Prints and Photographs Divison of the Library of Congress.
  • so the other side could hear. Not speak with violence where if whites saw violence they would shut their eyes and close their ears and demand the violence end, but speak through non-violence, so that when whites from the North saw African-Americans being beaten up and bitten by dogs and not respond with violence they would have to stop and listen and hear, and understand. Speak so the other side can hear,
  • and here too.
  • It’s my view we need a certain discipline here. A discipline in this movement, a discipline that makes it possible
  • so that we speak so the other side in this debate can hear what we’re saying too.
  • So here are the ways to that end.
  • The first thing is to recognize what the power is that we have. Now the chatterati in America think that the really interesting division in American Politics is between the Left side and the Right side. I think the interesting division in American Politics is between the inside and the outside.
  • The inside, the kind of world inside that beltway in Washington, DC, and then the outside, the rest of America. And when you listen to what they talk about, and contrast it to what the rest of us talk about, it’s just a remix of a very famous book Image of DC detail: www.conorspeace.com/2012/11/dcva-life.html
  • Washington is from Mars, and we are from Earth! Remix of copywrited Image: copyrighted, Harper Collins. See: http://www.amazon.com/gp/product/006016848X?ie=UTF8%20&amp;tag=hcbrowseinsideus-20&amp;linkCode=as2&amp;camp=1789&amp;creative=9325&amp;creativeASIN=006016848X
  • Now the point to recognize is that these outsiders have a certain politics, following Nigel Cameron let me just call it, to be kind of geeky, Exopolotics.
  • And the exopolitics is not a politics of politicians,
  • it’s a politics of citizen politics, citizens demanding that their politics change. Citizens who are not congressman wanna-bes, or representative wanna-bes, citizens who want to have the freedom to go back to their life but recognize they need to stand up for a week or a month or a year or five years, and shake the insanity out of their government.
  • And there are many instances, many examples of this over the past 15 years
  • and I think their increasingly frequent,
  • these waves of “open-source” energy that bubble up, and have an effect, and begin to define what this movement could be.
  • I think the move-on in 1998 was the first of these, when two Berkeley programmers look up from their computer screens and recognize that the United States Congress is considering impeaching a man because he lied about having sex, and they said, “What the hell? What the hell? There are real problems that America needs to address, this is way down that list, way down that list.” And so they started a movement that gathered signatures from millions of people within a couple weeks, from Democrats and Republicans alike, that said “Censure the man and move on.” And that movement, appearing out of nowhere, shocked Washington, and forced Washington to reconsider the craziness that had swept over the inside.
  • I think the Tea Party, the grass-roots component of the Tea Party movement, not the beltway Tea Party people, but the grass-roots Tea Party movement was a similar exopolitical movement using what they self-describe as the open-source energy of the internet to rally people behind their cause. Logo of http://teapartypatriots.org
  • I think the occupy movement was an exopolitical movement, which manifested itself and was created solely by the way in which people noticed and recognized and followed the online activity that made them salient and significant. Image of Occupy Fist logo at http://occupydesign.org/gallery/sites/default/files/images/Occupy_Logo.png
  • I think the extraordinary movement to stop the latest craziness emanating from this part of the country to regulate what’s called quote “Piracy on the Internet,” a bill which when it was introduced, Chris Dodd, the head of the Motion Picture Association of America, you know that’s the same Chris Dodd who was Senator from Connecticut who promised he would never become a lobbyist, he’s the guy I’m talking about, head of the Motion Picture Association of America, said he had sixty signatures in the senate to support this act, and yet within a couple of weeks, after an extraordinary net uprising including Wikipedia shutting down for a day, and hundreds of thousands of telephone calls to Capital Hill telling them to stop, SOPA was withdrawn.
  • This is a kind of power
  • It’s a ground up power
  • It’s new. Some from the geeky community
  • think it’s GNU
  • but if there’s hope for this movement
  • I think it is in this exopolitics.
  • But here’s the problem with exopolitics:
  • too much in this exopolitical movement is fundamentally polarized.
  • Like everyone
  • like politicians
  • like the political parties
  • like the media
  • like the dot orgs that try to rally us,
  • they practice this business model of polarization. They recognize, their managers recognize
  • they profit
  • the more they divide us, the more they teach us to hate them. The more they rally us to the loyalty to our side, the more they profit from us, the more they destroy the possibility that we can work with that side to bring about the change we need.
  • We’ve produced what we can call the Ray-Ban culture, polarized, and very, very cool. OK. image of sunglasses: copyrighted alt: http://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/File:Ray_Ban_Original_Wayfarer.jpg
  • Now the answer, I think, is to begin to focus
  • on the right message
  • and the right method
  • So let&apos;s focus first on the message. There is a way of talking about this problem that everybody can assent to, from the left and the right.
  • That&apos;s to focus on this root; the root is corruption.
  • This picture of the way our government functions image of capitol dome: http://dir.coolclips.com/History/United_States/Landmarks_and_Monuments/Capitols/Capitol_building_arch0215.html
  • In my view it is only this frame image: not found alt of frame: http://openclipart.org/search/?query=gold%20picture%20frame
  • that can unite people as diverse as these and these. image: Tea Party [top], Associated Press; Eat the Rich, Mario Tama / Getty Images
  • It is my view that this frame will not unite people from the left and the right image: Eat the Rich, Mario Tama / Getty Images
  • instead this at the core. And in pushing this at the core,
  • we&apos;ve been given another gift,
  • not by Stephen Colbert image: Colbert + Lawyer: Associated Press
  • but by Stephen Colbert&apos;s lawyer and a team that he worked with in pulling this together.
  • That is the American Anti-corruption Act, which as you pour through it, you will recognize it to be an extraordinary collection of changes that, if implemented, would fundamentally reshape the corruption of Washington. logo from http://anticorruptionact.org
  • So there&apos;s a provision that basically shuts down the Farm League for K Street. There&apos;s a provision that creates citizen-funded campaigns, building on the idea of vouchers funded through tax credits. There&apos;s a provision that fundamentally changes and challenges Citizens United, building on an idea, an observation that I made in my book, Republic Lost. And there&apos;s fundamental enhanced transparency that builds on the insights of the Sunlight Foundation to make it possible for us to understand what they&apos;re doing and why they&apos;re doing it, and how much time they&apos;re spending raising money in order to do it. image: K Street: AP / Charles Dharapak alt K St at : http://www.flickr.com/photos/glynlowe/7393130104/
  • This package is what I mean by bold,
  • not puny, reform. It is this kind of bold reform, not the puny reform, that we should be pushing.
  • Because in my view, this would work to change the way this system functions. So that&apos;s the message, a message focused on corruption.
  • Here&apos;s the method. It&apos;s a method that
  • the Wolf PAC has embraced. (Chang&apos;s sitting over here) image: http://www.wolf-pac.com /
  • So there&apos;s been enormous success in this progress towards petitioning our government to do the right thing. We write them letters, letters in the form of resolutions.
  • Resolutions say something like, &quot;Dear Congress, Please cure yourself. Please, pretty please. Please, please, please.
  • Those letters get filed. image: not found alt: http://pixabay.com/en/icon-office-cartoon-metal-free-30481/
  • Sometimes they get filed in a circular filing cabinet. Basketball hoop: Steven Johnson Flickr photostream
  • And my suggestion is we need to think about how we can act with more consequence. More consequence.
  • Ordinary way is Congress proposes, states ratify. Every amendment has followed that path -- except the original constitution Image of Article V: http://pixabay.com/en/constitution-united-states-usa-62947/
  • Article V embeds a procedure by which the States can call on Congress to call a Convention, a convention which proposes amendments, which like the other amendments are only valid of three fourths of the states, 38 states, ratify them.
  • Now there are two characteristics of this way of proceeding that I think are central.
  • First, it is cross-partisan, because people can be calling for a convention for any reason they want. And there is a strong conservative movement calling for a convention to address the problems of debt, the problem of a balanced budget, ideas that I don&apos;t have much sympathy for, but I do have sympathy for the idea that we need a way to address questions that isn&apos;t controlled by Congress.
  • And it is also the only procedure that has in our history actually worked to peacefully bring about a fundamental change in the way the government is structured.
  • Now you can say, &quot;Never before have we had a convention.&quot; That&apos;s true.
  • But we&apos;ve been close once.
  • That was 100 years ago, 1911, when the Senate was still appointed by the legislatures [see: http://foavc.org/file.php/1/Amendments]
  • and Congress was called upon to fix the Senate, because people perceived that to be the core of the corruption inside of the system, and Congress refused to fix the Senate by refusing to send out an amendment that could be ratified to change the way the Senate was elected.
  • And when the movement to call a convention was one state shy of the number it needed to call a convention,
  • Congress was terrified, and Congress&apos; terror quickly changed their refusal into an agreement
  • to send out to the States an amendment that would eventually be the amendment that would make the Senate elected. So the very process of bringing about the movement for a constitutional Article V convention image: http://cdn.dipity.com/uploads/events/5c306326b89994541adbe1d642d8839e_1M.png
  • forced the change inside the system that those who pushed that convention wanted.
  • Every new state
  • is one step closer to there being a convention.
  • Every new state
  • has consequence for the potential that is needed to bring about the pressure necessary to force that cancer to be cured. So this is the method that I think we need to increasingly consider, to talk about openly, and to discuss and debate, and recognize there are questions it raises I get, but we need to move and evolve to address those questions if we&apos;re going to have a strategy that can in the end win.
  • So here it is. I have a slogan. I am not good at slogan-writing, but here&apos;s the slogan.
  • &quot;Exopoliticians of the world, we have to unite behind the AA Act and force change with an Article V convention.&quot; There it is. OK, it&apos;s not quite a bumper sticker yet. It could be tweeted, but you know, not quite a bumper sticker yet. But this is the work we need to push to understand how this architecture, these architectures of changes can be the next step of this incredibly important movement
  • for change.
  • Now let me just end with this. I had the honor of going to New Hampshire earlier in this week to talk to some climate change scientists about the problem of money in their field, and I had to start by confessing to them that, I know, though, this is controversial.
  • Uploaded on June 30, 2006 by Steve Rhodes Al is still my hero here, and I showed them this clip from a TED talk that Al gave. http://www.flickr.com/pho tos/ari/178779981/
  • Al Gore: &quot;I&apos;m a big advocate of changing the light bulbs and buying hybrids, and Tipper and I put 33 solar panels on our house, and dug the geothermal wells, and have done all of that other stuff, but as important as it is to change the light bulbs, it is more important to change the laws. And when we change our behavior in our daily lives, we sometimes leave out the citizenship part and the democracy part. In order to be optimistic about this, we have to become incredibly active as citizens in our democracy. In order to solve the climate crisis, we have to solve the democracy crisis.&quot; [From Al Gore’s Ted Talk: http://www.ted.com/talks/al_gore_on_averting_climate_crisis.html]
  • The democracy crisis. Now I have never been to an event that depressed me more than that event with climate change scientists talking about the state of climate change knowledge, because as we sat there and focused on the fact that indeed
  • the problem was much worse than we thought. It turned out Al Gore and his film-maker Davis Guggenheim, who&apos;s in the room here, were apologists, because they described it (I&apos;m joking of course, right?), they described it in a way that turns out not to be as profoundly threatening as it is. I reflected on the fact that we&apos;re not making progress on this fundamental, for me the most fundamental, question. Indeed, after 2008, when both candidates ran saying this was a priority, 2012 happened, and neither candidate even mentioned the issue. Incredibly depressing. And then as I sat there and thought about every other issue that we think of as important -- image of smokestacks: not found alt: http://www.flickr.com/photos/paul_everett82/2290063942/
  • getting a health care system that works and that we could afford, image of syringe and pills: http://www.123rf.com/photo_815164_close-up-of-syringe-and-tablets-isolated-on-white-shallow-dof.html
  • getting reform on Wall Street that doesn&apos;t make our economy vulnerable to the gambles of the richest people in our society, i mage of Wall St. sign: Occupy Wall Street: Flikr user f-l-e-x http://www.flickr.com/photos/f-l-e-x/page3/
  • finding a way to address the fundamental debt crisis that will burden our children, and our children&apos;s children, and our children&apos;s children&apos;s children image: US National Debt Clock http://www.brillig.com/debt_clock/
  • I came back to this democracy crisis. This democracy crisis. You know, what the hell are we doing about this democracy crisis? I don&apos;t think of it so much as the democracy crisis.
  • I think of it as the republic crisis.
  • It&apos;s the crisis of living in Lesterland. The crisis of living in Lesterland,
  • and we were warned about this crisis. When Franklin was carried from the Constitutional Convention in 1787 and stopped in the street in Philadelphia by a woman, she said, &quot;Mr. Franklin, what have you wrought?&quot; Franklin said, &quot;A republic, madam, if you can keep it.&quot; [see story at: http://www.bartleby.com/73/1593.html] Attribution: James McHenry’s notes we re included in The Records of the Federal Convention of 1787, ed. Max Farrand, vol. 3, appendix A, p. 85 (1911, reprinted 1934), a footnote stated that the date this anecdote was written is uncertain. Image of Ben Franklin: benjamin-fran klin-0708-lg-23110915.jpg
  • A representative democracy.
  • A representative democracy.
  • A government dependent on the people alone.
  • We have not kept that republic. We have lost that republic.
  • And we must urgently find a way to act
  • to get it back.
  • And how?
  • Through a certain discipline. Image: Rev. Martin Luther King, head-and-shoulders portrait, facing right, speaking at a rally in Crawfordville, Georgia].&quot; United Press International telephoto,1965 Oct 11. Prints and Photographs Divison of the Library of Congress.
  • Through a charity of that movement
  • We
  • Us
  • This movement
  • needs that discipline and charity now, if we are going to stop the insanity that is destroying this Nation
  • Lawrence Lessig's "The Problem with Money in Politics" at UCLA on November 17, 2012

    1. THE Problem withMoney in POLITICS Republic, Lost2012 17 Nov
    2. <1>
    3. theproblem
    4. Once upon a tim!..
    5. Lester -land
    6. Lesterland
    7. Lesterland144,000
    8. Lesterland.05%
    9. to run in Lester election must do General election well in Lesters Citizens vote votepower
    10. what we can say aboutLesterland:
    11. 1.
    12. Lester election General election Lesters Citizens vote votepower
    13. 2.
    14. (obviously)
    15. dependence upon the lesters
    16. subtleunderstatedcamouflaged
    17. bending
    18. to keepthe lesters happy
    19. 3.
    20. reform
    21. that angers
    22. Lesters
    23. (highly)unlikely
    24. Lester -land
    25. 3
    26. (1)
    27. USA =Lesterland
    28. USA twoelections
    29. to run in $$$ election must do General election well in “Funders” Citizens vote vote
    30. there rjust as few
    31. (relevant)“Funders”
    32. asthere r
    33. “Lesters”
    34. really ?
    35. “.05”?
    36. .3%
    37. .055%
    38. .01%
    39. .0003%
    40. 132 Americans .000042%60% of superpac $
    41. .3%/.055%/.01%
    42. .26%/.05%/.01%
    43. “The Funders”“The Funders” are not are our are not“The People” “The” “Lesters”
    44. Like say aboutLesterland:
    45. say aboutUSA-land:
    46. 1.
    47. $$$ election General election“Funders” Citizens vote vote
    48. 2.
    49. (obviously)
    50. dependence upon the“the funders”
    51. subtleunderstatedcamouflaged
    52. bending
    53. to keepthe funders happy
    54. 30-70%
    55. “sixth sense”
    56. shape-shifters
    57. “always lean to the green”
    58. “he was not anenvironmentalist”
    59. 3.
    60. reform
    61. that angers
    62. “Thefunders”
    63. (highly)unlikely
    64. USA =Lesterland
    65. (2)
    66. USAworse thanLesterland
    67. Lesterland
    68. Aristocracy of s
    69. (possible)the Lesters act 4the good oflesterland
    70. ourland
    71. thisland
    72. USA-land
    73. the Lesters act 4the lesters
    74. shiftingcoalitions
    75. ~public interest
    76. USAworse thanLesterland
    77. (3)
    78. whateverone says about
    79. Lester-land. .
    80. Lester(In Our) land
    81. Lester(Our) land
    82. USA(Our) land
    83. conflictingdependence
    84. corruption
    85. corruption relative toFramers’ baseline
    86. A RepublicRepresentative Democracy
    87. The People:& so would e m b l the r o publicp good be
    88. c Republic, s ongreshas evolveda differentdependence
    89. The People The Funder$
    90. a dependence
    91. different &conflicting
    92. solong as
    93. “The Funders”“The Funders” are not are not are not“The People”“The People”
    94. thiscorruption has an effect
    95. (1)
    96. Americansbelieve
    97. (Americans are right)
    98. Americansbelieve
    99. “money buys results in Congress”
    100. 75%
    101. 81%71%
    102. (2)
    103. that belieferodestrust
    104. 9%
    105. moretrusted than
    106. (3)
    107. that erosion erodesparticipation
    108. “no matter who wins,corporate interests will still have too much power and prevent real change”
    109. notjustkids
    110. vast majority did not vote
    111. 40%did not vote
    112. b/c ofthisbelief
    113. </1>
    114. <2>
    115. thesolution
    116. systemicproblem:
    117. “The Funders”“The Funders” are not are not are not“The People”“The People”
    118. systemicsolution:
    119. “The Funders”“The Funders” are not are not are not“The People”“The People”
    120. “The Funders”“The Funders” are are not“The People”“The People”
    121. givethema way
    122. fund w/ofaust
    123. w/oselling their souls
    124. w/oalienating America
    125. oneonLYway:way:c
    126. “citizenfundedcampaigns”
    127. small dollar fundedcampaigns
    128. opt
    129. small $$$$$contributions only
    130. amplified
    131. manyversions
    132. matching grants
    133. + NYC
    134. tax credits
    135. vouchers
    136. or all three together...
    137. each fundsbottom up
    138. “The Funders” each =“The People”
    139. money election0-20% 20-40% 40-60% 60-80% 80-95% 95-99% top 1%
    140. general election0-20% 20-40% 40-60% 60-80% 80-95% 95-99% top 1%
    141. citizenfundedcampaigns
    142. only c i t i z e n sall citizens
    143. if
    144. small$$$$$only
    145. believe
    146. notb/c$$$$
    147. </2>
    148. <3>
    149. thequestion
    150. is itpossible ?
    151. “Farm league
    152. Members StaffersBureaucrats
    153. increasingly commonbusiness model
    154. focused
    155. lifeaftergov’t
    156. life aslobbyists
    157. 50%
    158. 42%
    159. 1,452%
    160. everyonedepends
    161. systemsurviving
    162. howpossible?
    163. cancerdoesn’t cure itself.
    164. won’t becured w/
    165. dinky littlereforms
    166. movement
    167. unlike anywe’ve seen
    168. taking on a
    169. corruption
    170. </3>
    171. <4>
    172. theopportunity
    173. O U T-RAGE
    174. O U T-RAGE
    175. INSPIRA TION
    176. and in theprocess
    177. millionsrecruited
    178. to this cause.
    179. INCREDIBLYIMPORTANT
    180. FIRST STEP
    181. beginning
    182. /end
    183. this framing
    184. FIRST STEP
    185. these means
    186. brilliantFIRST STEPs
    187. BUILT ARECOGNITION
    188. something must be done!
    189. GALLUP
    190. of course turnto the campaigns
    191. obama
    192. romney
    193. onlyissue
    194. ~
    195. first time
    196. as long aswe can see
    197. Needasknow:
    198. next?
    199. what r thenextsteps
    200. 4 thismovement
    201. message
    202. means
    203. 4 they mustevolve
    204. .
    205. thischange
    206. must b:
    207. cross-partisan
    208. /bi-partisan
    209. cuta cross-partisan lines
    210. 1
    211. civilwar
    212. cannotwin
    213. ifpolarized
    214. ifdivided
    215. means:
    216. we must speakso others can hear
    217. speak, soothers can
    218. speak, so hear.others can
    219. heretoo.
    220. discipline
    221. speakso others can hear
    222. </4>
    223. <5>
    224. theways
    225. 1: power
    226. out side l “chattarati” DC e f t
    227. out side exopolitics politics
    228. politics ofpoliticians
    229. s demanding citizenthat change politics
    230. many
    231. &increasingly frequent
    232. waves“open-source” energy
    233. 9 81 9
    234. 2009
    235. 2011
    236. 2012
    237. power
    238. ground up
    239. new
    240. GNU
    241. ifthere’s hope
    242. out side exopolitics
    243. problem:
    244. out side i z e d l a rexopoliticsp o
    245. likeeveryone
    246. politicians
    247. politicians parties
    248. politicians parties media
    249. politicians parties media .org’s
    250. practicebusiness model business model of of polarization hate
    251. allprofit
    252. the morewe divide.
    253. polarized culture& v. cool
    254. answer:
    255. • message
    256. • method
    257. 2: message
    258. corruption
    259. The Funder$The People
    260. only
    261. /
    262. corruption
    263. •Farm league shut•citizen funded campaigns•citizen united reformed•transparency enhanced
    264. bold
    265. ~puny
    266. work.
    267. 3: method
    268. Dear Congress,Please cure yourself.Please.Pretty please.Yours truly,U.S.
    269. act withconsequence
    270. 2
    271. (1)cross-partisan
    272. (2) only thingthat has worked
    273. Neverbefore
    274. closeonce
    275. 1911
    276. Congress refused to fixthe senate
    277. when1 state shy
    278. Congressagreed to refused to fixthe senate
    279. 17th Amendment
    280. force change
    281. every newstate
    282. onestatecloser
    283. every newstate
    284. consequence
    285. SO
    286. Exopoliticians, unite behind the AA Act,& force change w/ a(v) convention
    287. </5>
    288. <end>
    289. Thedemocracy crisis
    290. The /democracy crisis
    291. TheRepublic Crisis
    292. Lester -land
    293. Rep-ublic, if you cankeep
    294. A Republic
    295. Representative Democracy
    296. lost
    297. act
    298. get itback
    299. how?
    300. discipline
    301. CHARITY OF THATMOVEMENT
    302. WE
    303. US
    304. THIS
    305. needthatnow.
    306. </END>
    307. Flickr Photos - credits Capitol - cow tools Wall St - Flickr/f-l-e-xAL Gore Hero - Steve RhodesTrashCan - Steve Johnson
    308. THIS WORKLICENSED:
    309. things you can do now: by• join Rootstrikers.org txting ROOT to: +1-413-315-5062• tweet $-in-politics stories Text w/ #rootstrikers• get your Representative to take the “No Lobbying Pledge” (@ thanks.

    ×