How Money Corrupts Congress & A Plan to Stop IT
•Download as PPT, PDF•
4 likes•13,170 views
How Money Corrupts Congress outlines a problem and plan to address it. The problem is that Congress has developed a dependence on large political donations from "The Funders" rather than "The People", distorting its work and weakening public trust. The plan proposes publicly funding elections to replace large donor campaigns with small dollar funded campaigns. It suggests giving every voter "Democracy Vouchers" to allocate to candidates and limiting other contributions, while allowing for "Super-PAC insurance" to address imbalances. The goal is to make Congress trustworthy and believed to act based on beliefs rather than money. However, getting such reforms enacted will be extremely difficult.
Recommended
Recommended
More Related Content
Recently uploaded
Recently uploaded (14)
Featured
Featured (20)
How Money Corrupts Congress & A Plan to Stop IT
- 1. How Money Corrupts Congress & A Plan to Stop IT Republic, Lost2011 17 Jan
- 2. Republic, Lost Republic, Lost2011 17 Jan
- 3. How Money Corrupts Congress & A Plan to Stop IT Republic, Lost2011 17 Jan
- 4. How Money How Corrupts Congress & A Plan to Stop IT
- 5. How Money Corrupts Congress & A Plan to A Plan Stop IT
- 6. How
- 7. <1>
- 9. e.g.
- 11. October 27, 1998
- 14. +20
- 16. “no brainer”
- 17. no brains
- 18. what there was:
- 19. $6.3m
- 20. e.g. (IP2)
- 23. ?
- 24. A BILL To promote prosperity, creativity, entrepreneurship, and in- novation by combating the theft of U.S. property, and for other purposes. 1 Be it enacted by the Senate and House of Representa- 2 tives of the United States of America in Congress assembled, 3 SECTION 1. SHORT TITLE; TABLE OF CONTENTS. 4 (a) SHORT TITLE.—This Act may be cited as the 5 ‘‘Stop Online Piracy Act’’. 6 (b) TABLE OF CONTENTS.—The table of contents of 7 this Act is as follows: Sec. 1. Short title; table of contents.
- 25. “To promote prosperity, creativity, entrepreneurship, and innovation by combating the theft of U.S. property, and for other purposes.”
- 26. “engage in, enable, or facilitate” er n et In t t he ,copyright a ka infringement.
- 27. y, a sk si How? ca ll ba
- 28. ye p. “prior irestraint”? Tr b e:
- 30. Justice O’Connor: If you say that the Copyright 1 st Clause is not violated, I don't A think there areon t o where examples this exc Court p ehastithen resorted to © Amendment analysis to First invalidate the same act. Eldred v. Ashcroft
- 31. all together: pretty extraordinary
- 33. “To promote prosperity, creativity, ? entrepreneurship, and innovation by combating the theft of U.S. property, and for other purposes.”
- 36. e.g. (IP3)
- 37. I H. R. 3699 112TH CONGRESS 1ST SESSION To ensure the continued publication and integrity of peer-reviewed research works by the private sector. IN THE HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES DECEMBER 16, 2011 Mr. ISSA (for himself and Mrs. MALONEY) introduced the following bill; which was referred to the Committee on Oversight and Government Reform A BILL To ensure the continued publication and integrity of peer-
- 39. > 12 months, download for free
- 40. “for free”
- 41. we had paid
- 43. “for free”
- 45. Serial Expenditures (+273%) 250% 200% Serial Unit Cost (+188%) 150% Monograph 100% Unit Cost (+77%) CPI (+73%) Monograph Expenditures (+63%) 50% Serials Purchased (+42%) 0% Monographs Purchased (-9%) -50%
- 46. I H. R. 3699 112TH CONGRESS 1ST SESSION To ensure the continued publication and integrity of peer-reviewed research works by the private sector. ess -a cc o p en IN THE HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES ba n DECEMBER 16, 2011 Mr. ISSA (for himself and Mrs. MALONEY) introduced the following bill; which was referred to the Committee on Oversight and Government Reform A BILL To ensure the continued publication and integrity of peer-
- 47. why?
- 48. a xe s, “ This se tsaves a bill e cr e job iAmerican jobs.” n s! m o r
- 49. “ to advance the public interest in the e) fr e important peer- vi ew = er reviewrepublishing ( pe system”
- 54. ~40%
- 55. e.g. (IP)
- 56. broadband
- 57. 20 000 40 000 60 000 80 000 100 000 120 000 M ex ic o 2 979 C hi le 8 875 Ire Lu la xe nd 9 644 m bo ur g 13 184 U Sp ni ai te d n 14 507 St at es 14 665 Is r ae 15 872 l G re ec e 16 091 Tu r ke G y 17 302 er m an H y 17 303 un Sw ga ry 20 087 itz er la nd 20 779 C N an ew ad a 20 821 Average advertised broadband download speed, by country, kbit/s, September 2010 Ze Average advertised broadband download speed, kbit/s* al an d 22 016 Es to n ia 22 801 Po la nd 23 821 Be lg iu D m 24 891 C en Median ze m ch ar R k 25 771 U ep ni te ub d lic 26 317 Ki ng do m 26 624 Ic e la nd 27 051 Au s tri a 29 157 Ita y l 29 975 Fi nl an Au d 30 674 st ra 5a. Average advertised lia 32 401 O N EC 37 503 et he D broadband download speed rl a nd s 39 595 Sl N ov or ak w ay 46 144 R ep ub lic 48 000 Ko re Sl a 55 593 ov en ia 61 771 Fr an ce 66 839 Ja pa 80 612 Po n rtu ga 84 096 Sw l ed en 85 612
- 62. MuniNetworks.org
- 63. H.129
- 64. n ed “community b an broadband”
- 65. why?
- 67. e.g.
- 69. ?
- 72. “temporary” so as to test
- 73. did it work?
- 74. it did.
- 75. all agree: it did.
- 76. a great tax credit idea.
- 78. t e ly madelsense so u ab
- 80. why?
- 85. dynamic central
- 86. how DC “works”
- 89. “Hell no!” If we deregula te these guys, how are we going to
- 90. tax 2 raise $
- 91. regulate 2 raise $
- 93. e.g.
- 96. why?
- 98. perverse mix
- 99. too little gov’t & too much gov’t
- 100. too little gov’t:
- 101. aka deregulation
- 102. 1990s: i v e s v a t “financial i d r einnovations”
- 103. “innovations” invisible 2 the market
- 104. exchange OTC 1980
- 105. exchange OTC 2008
- 106. shadow banking
- 107. encouraged
- 110. too much gov’t:
- 111. throughout 1990s
- 113. gov’t guarantee
- 115. bailout
- 117. insanely stupid
- 118. that’s b4 2008
- 119. after 2008
- 120. insult injury insult
- 121. after
- 122. after
- 123. after
- 124. ” after “mistake
- 126. “too big to fail”
- 127. “too big to fail”
- 128. why?
- 129. one thing we know:
- 130. 300 Campaign Contributions 225 150 financial securities sector sector 75 4x 6x 0 1999 2006
- 132. e.g.
- 134. how?
- 135. environmental impact/risk studies?
- 137. ?
- 138. t ed e m p ex17 pages
- 139. “shocked”
- 140. yet...
- 141. Congress had required
- 142. approval w/i 30 days
- 143. why?
- 144. one thing we know:
- 147. No respectable
- 148. c o n s e lib r libertarian v a t i v e
- 150. each
- 151. abomination
- 152. how?
- 155. but:
- 156. you believe you know
- 158. cause
- 159. my claim:
- 160. (1)
- 162. Americans believe
- 163. “money buys results in COngress”
- 164. 75%
- 165. 81% 71%
- 166. (2)
- 168. 12% 9% 11%
- 169. <
- 170. (3)
- 171. low trust erodes participation
- 173. “no matter who wins, corporate interests will still have too much power and prevent real change”
- 174. not just kids
- 175. vast majority did not vote
- 176. b/c of this belief
- 177. </1>
- 178. point 1:
- 179. point 1: $$ erodes trust
- 180. more?
- 181. only?
- 182. <2>
- 183. What does $$ do?
- 184. si a l (1) substance v e r t r o c on
- 187. results = ƒ($)?
- 188. statistically significant contributor influence … in seven of the eight Houses
- 190. (2) agenda
- 192. #1
- 194. “swipe fees”
- 195. [T]he clock never ticks down to zero in Washington: one year’s law is the next year’s repeal target. Politicians, showered with cash from card companies and giant retailers alike,
- 196. agenda = ƒ($$$)
- 197. unemployment:? doesn’t pay so well.
- 198. unemployment: doesn’t pay so well.
- 199. </2>
- 200. point 2:
- 201. point 2: $$ distorts
- 204. “Independent expenditures, including those made by corporations, do not give rise to corruption or the appearance of corruption.”
- 205. <3>
- 206. r o including those made by g “Independent expenditures, n l ly w corporations, do not give rise to to ta corruption or the appearance of corruption.”
- 207. plainly “corruption”
- 211. The People: em bl r o p
- 213. The People The Funder$
- 214. 30-70%
- 215. “sixth sense”
- 216. shape-shifters
- 217. “always lean to the green”
- 218. “he was not an environmentalist”
- 219. a dependence
- 222. b/c
- 223. “The Funders” “The Funders” are not are not are not “The People” “The People”
- 224. .26%
- 225. .05%
- 226. .01%
- 227. 99.74% ^ XXX
- 228. 99.95% ^ XXX
- 229. 99.99% ^ XXX
- 230. this is:
- 231. corruptio n
- 234. it is a “corruption”
- 237. wrong dependence
- 238. corruptio n
- 239. </3>
- 240. How Money How Corrupts Congress & A Plan to Stop IT
- 241. wrong dependency ↪ distorts work ↪ weakens trust
- 242. wrong dependency ↪ distorts work ↪ weakens trust
- 243. wrong dependency ↪ distorts work ↪ weakens trust
- 244. How Money How Corrupts Congress & A Plan to Stop IT
- 245. How Money Corrupts Congress & A Plan to Stop IT
- 246. plan
- 247. <0>
- 250. 1846
- 255. </0>
- 256. <1>
- 257. Problem:
- 259. problem: system
- 260. Solution:
- 263. stop:
- 264. start:
- 266. “The Funders” “The Funders” are not are not are not “The People” “The People”
- 267. systemic solution:
- 268. “The Funders” “The Funders” == are not are not “The People” “The People”
- 269. give them a way
- 270. fund w/o faust
- 273. one onLY way: way:c
- 274. publicly f u n d public elections
- 275. large REPLACE dollar funded campaigns
- 276. small dollar funded campaigns
- 278. opt
- 279. small $$$$$ contributions only
- 280. amplified
- 281. many ways 2 do
- 284. A T E R E B
- 285. Democracy voucher
- 288. +
- 289. contributions limited to:
- 291. if don’t allocate?
- 293. $50/voter = $7b
- 294. 2010: $1.8b
- 295. 3x
- 296. real $
- 297. enuf?
- 298. No.
- 299. age of the super-PAC
- 300. Super-PAC dynamic
- 301. 30 days
- 302. do?
- 303. super-PAC insurance
- 304. | | Left Right
- 305. how buy insurance?
- 307. “we’d like to help you Senator, but we can only support people who support us at 80%…”
- 308. so, without spending one $ ...
- 309. means:
- 310. need more than
- 312. need:
- 314. Amendment 11 Congress shall have the power to limit, but not to ban, independent political expenditures within 90 days of an
- 315. SO:
- 316. +
- 317. Trustworthy Congress
- 318. if
- 319. small $$$$$ only
- 320. believe
- 321. not b/c $$$$
- 322. make trust possible
- 323. if
- 324. </1>
- 325. <2>
- 326. How get there?
- 327. HARD
- 328. HARD
- 329. HARD
- 330. HARD
- 331. “Farm league
- 333. increasingly common business model
- 334. focused
- 335. life after gov’t
- 336. life as lobbyists
- 337. 50%
- 338. 42%
- 339. everyone depends
- 340. system surviving
- 341. so how?
- 342. CHANGE this
- 343. challenge: q: how find a way around
- 345. / Left v. Right
- 346. inside v. outside
- 348. enable: outside-the-beltway outsider politics
- 352. citizen politics
- 353. professional politics
- 354. amateur politics
- 355. Amateur == “for ! love of ! A", not for ! money.”
- 356. Amateur == “for ! love of ! Nation, not for !. power.”
- 357. Ro politics
- 358. RW politics
- 360. sovereign awake
- 361. outsider politics
- 362. needs 2 do 2 things
- 363. (1) cross-partisan
- 364. (2) aim @ “rules of the game”
- 365. both impossibly hard
- 366. discipline impossibly hard
- 367. is a n pa r t o ss - c r other side == enemy
- 368. ul e s on r f o c us passion 4 substance
- 369. rules
- 370. but both necessary
- 371. 4 constitutional change to happen
- 372. in U.S., failed beginnings...
- 373. 9 8 at first cross-partisan 1 9 quickly fell to the left
- 374. 2009 @ first outsider/reformers quickly became insiders on the right
- 375. @ first outsiders on the left 2011 quickly stayed aloof
- 376. if these can mature:
- 377. (really) speak for the 99%
- 379. change possible
- 380. plan
- 381. we don’t know
- 382. whether
- 383. we do know
- 384. how it starts
- 385. (1) clarity
- 388. common ground
- 389. corruptio n
- 390. focus: pick
- 391. health care reform
- 392. gov’t bailouts
- 393. global warming
- 394. complex tax
- 395. financial reform
- 396. financial reform
- 397. cause
- 398. The Funder$ The People
- 400. get
- 401. to see
- 402. (2) courage
- 403. Arnold Hiatt
- 407. loyal Democrat
- 408. 1996: #2
- 413. FDR
- 414. 1940
- 415. “convince a reluctant nation to wage a war to save democracy.”
- 416. u2
- 417. “convince a reluctant nation to wage a war to save democracy.”
- 418. /
- 419. against:
- 420. [silence]
- 422. “Clinton’s response effectively slashed Hiatt to pieces, humiliating him in front of the
- 423. 15 years later
- 424. recognize
- 425. Arnold h t r i g Hiatt
- 426. “convince a reluctant nation to wage a war to save democracy.”
- 427. n g o Arnold Hiatt r w
- 428. not politicians
- 429. citizens
- 430. us.
- 431. root strikers.
- 432. u.
- 433. our job
- 434. our courage
- 435. our Republic
- 436. lost.
- 437. ours
- 438. / theirs
- 439. they took it away
- 440. we let them
- 441. </2>
- 442. <end>
- 444. responsibility.
- 448. no no doubt doubt
- 449. Mother: “I do know that he had a problem with alcohol in the past.”
- 451. 1989: Exxon’s President: “thought he had mastered his problem.”
- 453. 1988: license revoked (DUI)
- 454. b u t forget
- 456. think about:
- 457. those around him
- 458. other officers
- 459. “picked up a phone”
- 461. did nothing.
- 462. what about them?
- 463. ask:
- 464. we are they
- 465. critical problems
- 466. serious attention
- 467. institutions incapable attention
- 468. distracted
- 469. unable 2focus
- 470. who is 2 blame?
- 471. “responsible”?
- 473. evil people
- 474. good people
- 475. decent people
- 476. “picked up a phone”
- 477. us
- 478. we
- 479. most privileged
- 480. most outrageous part
- 481. corruptions primed most privileged
- 483. “permitted”
- 484. Rep- ublic, if you can keep
- 485. A Republic
- 488. lost
- 489. act
- 490. get it back
- 491. </end>
- 492. Flickr Photos - credits Capitol - cow tools fiber - Craig Rodway clinton - sskennel Blackboard-chadskeers copper - pascal.charest bottle - Guillermo Esteves brain - liz henry Wall St - F-l-e-x Bubble - zzub nik Friedman - Gabriel M Bono - trainman74
- 493. THIS WORK LICENSED:
- 494. How Money Corrupts Congress & A Plan to Stop IT Republic, Lost2011 17 Jan
Editor's Notes
- Thank you. So, its wonderful to be here. This has got to be the coolest group to be able to present ideas to, and so I'm grateful to have a chance to do it. I had a little bit of a fight with the organizers about the title. I go for poetic.
- So, I wanted this to be the title: Republic, Lost. And they said to me, "Well, what the hell does it mean," and I said, "Oh, I'm sorry: 'Republic, comma, Lost,'" That didn't help.
- They insisted on this much more, you know, engineering-appropriate title, "How Money Corrupts Congress and a Plan to Stop It." I thought maybe I would, you know, just subvert their objectives by going back to my other title– but no, I'll stick to the title. I want to make it perfectly clear. Here's what I'm going to do: I'm going to first describe to you...
- ...HOW money corrupts Congress, and then what I'm going to give you is...
- ...a PLAN to stop it. Is that clear? OK.
- So here's the how.
- We've got to begin by...
- ...a little bit of brainwashing to get you to think about this in the way I want you to think about this. And I'm going to do this through a series of stories. Image of brain scan: http://www.flickr.com/photos/lizhenry/2051224366 ## Some rights reserved by Liz Henry Image of spon ge: source not found Alternative(s): http:/ /www.clke r.com/clipart-sponge-2.html http://www.clker.com/clipart-2975 .html http://www.clker.com/clipart-15766.ht ml http://www.clker.com/clipart-bleach-bottl e.html
- The first is familiar to many of you here, because you were in the middle of this fight with me.
- It’s the fight about the issue of copyright law, IP. Image of gold copyright symbol: http://www.psdgraphics.com/icons/3d-copyright-symbol/
- I became an activist in copyright law on October 27, 1998, when president Bill Clinton signed into a law a statute...
- ...honoring this great American. Image of Sonny and Cher TV Guide: http://www.flickr.com/photos/trainman/1929214750/in/set-72157602751546091 ## Some rights reserved Alternative(s): http://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/File:Sonny-Bono.jpg http://commons.wiki media.org/wiki/File:Sonny_Bono.jpg http://commons.wik imedia.org/wiki/File:Sonny_and_Chastity_Bono_1974.JPG
- The "Sonny Bono Copyright Term Extension Act."* A statute which extended the term of existing copyrights by... * www.copyright.gov/legislation/s505.pdf
- ...20 years. Now the question that Congress was supposed to be asking when it passed that statute was...
- ...whether it advanced the public good to extend the term of an existing copyright by 20 years. Of course, copyrights are important for creating the incentives for people to produce great new creative work. But the one thing we know about incentives is that they are prospective. Not even the United States Congress can get George Gershwin to produce anything more. So it couldn't possibly make sense to extend the term of an existing copyright, at least from the perspective of what copyright law is about. And so when we challenged this statute and went to the Supreme Court and got a whole bunch of economists to sign a brief saying that this could make no sense, we got...
- ...this liberal economist – oh, wait, I'm sorry, that's Milton Friedman – right-wing, Nobel-Prize-winning economist to sign the brief, but he said he would only sign the brief if the word "no brainer" was in the brief. So obvious was it that you couldn't advance the public good by extending the term of existing copyrights. Image of Milton Friedman: http://farm1.static.flickr.com/103/311038372_a8211c808c.jpg ## Flickr Gabriel M.
- But apparently there were no brains in this place when Congress unanimously extended the term of existing copyrights. Image of US Capitol Building: http://www.flickr.com/photos/cowtools/321574679/in/set-72157594420171255 ## Flickr Cowtools
- What there was...
- ...was a whole bunch of money from interests that benefitted from having their special monopoly extended; the public good be damned. Image of Mickey: rights reserved by Disney Alternative(s): http://www.clker.com/clipart-mickey.html Image of rolled bills: http://www.flickr.com/photos/amagill/336 7543296/
- And while we're on the IP story, let's talk about another example. I'm sure a certain terror came across many of you today as...
- ...you saw on your Wikipedia site, that we were going to lose Wikipedia and a whole bunch of other fantastic sites tomorrow in the name of fighting for Internet freedom. Image of Wikipedia blackout: source not found Alternative(s): http://2.bp.blogspot.com/-tLexXnfSFoc/TxZhrHTfmhI/AAAAAAAAAVA/pJ1q1uCWcgs/s1600/wikipedia-blackout-0117.jpg
- A fight against PIPA and SOPA and whatever else you want to call what is going on in the universe from Congress. Image of Wikipedia blackout 2: http://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/File:Wikipedia_SOPA_Blackout_Design.png
- Statutes which Congress is enacting or trying to enact, or dancing around about whether they are going to enact so that more campaign money comes in, dancing and singing about trying to advance the interests they have in continuing to protect intellectual property. Now what is this statute about? Image of US Capitol Building: http://www.flickr.com/photos/cowtools/321574679/in/set-72157594420171255 ## Flickr Cowtools
- Well, here is SOPA.* SOPA has a very clear objective. * http://www.gpo.gov/fdsys/pkg/BILLS-112hr3261ih/pdf/BILLS-112hr3261ih.pdf
- It's objective is “To promote prosperity, creativity, entrepreneurship, and innovation by combating the theft of U.S. property, and for other purposes."* * http://www.gpo.gov/fdsys/pkg/BILLS-112hr3261ih/pdf/BILLS-112hr3261ih.pdf
- And it does this by giving Federal Courts the power to shut down websites that "engage in, enable, or facilitate" copyright infringement. Now, I get the first one: those who "engage in" copyright infringement, but just think about those sites that "enable or facilitate" copyright infringement. We could call those sites "the Internet." So, here's a statute that gives federal judges the power to shut down the Internet. How do they actually go about that?
- Well, basically somebody comes in and asks them, says, “Here's a site that we believe is engaging in this illegal criminal activity; we want you to shut it down.” No hearing, no need to give any notice, no need to actually prove, beyond just the allegation, in the context of somebody having a chance to respond.
- That leads some people say, "Isn't that a prior restraint?" The sort of thing that the Constitution was originally designed to avoid in the First Amendment? Lawrence Tribe of Harvard said, "Yep, that's exactly what it is: a prior restraint," which is why he is leading a bunch of law professors against this statute.* * Tribe, Larry. “SOPA: The End of the Internet as We Know it.” BostInno. 20 Dec. 2011. Web. http://bostinno.com/2011/12/20/sopa-will-kill-the-internet/
- "What about the First Amendment?" people say. Well, I hit the First Amendment in the context of copyright when I argued the case in the Supreme Court trying to limit the term of Copyright Term Extension Act.
- So Sandra O'Conner asked, after I raised the question of the First Amendment, she put it to me like this: "If you say that the Copyright Clause is not violated, I don't think there are examples where this Court has then resorted to First Amendment analysis to invalidate the same act." The famous copyright exception to the First Amendment, which of course reigns in all sorts of contexts in our jurisprudence.
- All of these factors together should get us to recognize this is a pretty extraordinary law. And it's led many people to say...
- ...whether it advances innovation, it is also going to kill a whole bunch of innovation because of the uncertainty and insecurity that it is adding in to the Internet.
- So, sure, this statute was proposed to combat theft of U.S. property, but, if these people are right, it's not really a statute about any of those things, so what is it a statute about? And I remind you now of the "other purposes." I don't know what the statute's about—here's what I do know:
- MapLight, a fantastic organization in Berkeley, which tracks the relationship between money and politics, has this to say about this statute... Image of MapLight screenshot: http://maplight.org/us-congress/bill/112-hr-3261/1019110/total-contributions
- ...If you support this statute, you get 13 times as much money in campaign contributions from those who support this statute as if you oppose it. Image of MapLight graph: http://maplight.org/us-congress/bill/112-hr-3261/1019110/total-contributions (Note: current version of this graph shows 8.6 times as much.)
- Here's another IP example. IP3 we'll call this. Another statute just introduced last month.
- This is the Research Works Act.* A statute introduced—bipartisan statute—by Carolyn Maloney, a Democrat from New York, and Darrell Issa, a Republican from California. This statute was inspired by... * http://www.gpo.gov/fdsys/pkg/BILLS-112hr3699ih/pdf/BILLS-112hr3699ih.pdf
- ...a practice that NIH adopted, of requiring that government-funded research - government-funded research – let's just be clear – government-funded research be... NIH logo: http://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/4/43/NIH_logo.svg
- ...available 12 months after it’s published to be downloaded for free.
- For free. You know, in a very weird sense of "free"—right?
- We paid for this research—that's the whole point.
- Government funded research. Here's the way it works: we, the people, take our money and give it to the government. Image of ‘We the People’: http://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/File:Constitution_We_the_People.jpg Image of $100 bills: http://www.flickr.com/photos/amagill/3366720659/ Image of U.S. Treas ury Building: http://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipe dia/commons/2/2c/US-Treasury-Large.png
- The government then gives it to the NIH. The NIH then buys the research, and that's the sense in which we get this “for free,” when the NIH says, "We're going to turn it over to the public, after 12 months, for free.” That's the condition of taking the money and publishing the research. Image of ‘We the People’: http://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/File:Constitution_We_the_People.jpg Image of NIH logo: http://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/4/43/NIH_logo.svg
- Now some publishers don't like this. This Dutch publisher, Elsevier—they don't like this. They're really into the business model of the market where... Image of Elsevier logo: http://mrkieran.com/wp-content/uploads/2010/11/Elsevier-Logo.png
- ...they have exploited the power that they have in academic journals, to raise the price of academic journals, over the past period of time, much higher than inflation by far.* They enjoy that market, and that market doesn't do too well when the government mandates that you must hand out, after 12 months, these articles for free. So, they went to their friends - Mr. Issa and Ms. Maloney in Congress (that’s Maloney, not Baloney) - in Congress. *Association of Research Libraries. ARL Statistics 2003-04. Washington, DC. http://www.arl.org/bm~doc/arlstat04.pdf Image of ARL Statistics graph: http://www.arl.org/bm~doc/arlstat04.pdf
- And they got them to introduce this bill. And this bill bans the NIH from requiring this policy. And it bans any government agency from conditioning, giving money on making the work publicly available. It bans open access.
- Why does it ban open access?
- Well, Ms. Maloney wrote a piece on a blog, in response to a letter, saying, "It saves American jobs."* On the well-known economic theory that, if you tax people twice, you get more jobs. Right? Because we're taxing people once to raise the money to pay for the research, and now we're taxing them again to get access to it. So, double taxation increases jobs. * Kentsis, Alex. “Time to terminate the ‘Research Works Act’ which aims to terminate public access to publicly-funded science?” olog. 12 Jan. 2012. Blog. http://sistnek.blogspot.com/2012/01/time-to-terminate-research-works-act.html
- There's another reason: “to advance the public interest in the important peer-review publishing system.” Congresswoman, peer-review is done for free. People, for free, peer-review articles. You don't need money to cover the peer-review costs.
- That's what the Public Library of Science here in San Francisco has demonstrated again and again. Image of PLoS logo: http://www.flickr.com/photos/dullhunk/3928195989/meta/
- So, what explains this law banning us from getting, for free, what we paid for? I don't know. I don't have a clue. I don't begin to understand it.
- But here's what MapLight tells me. Image of MapLight screenshot: http://maplight.org/us-congress/bill/112-hr-3699/1025397/total-contributions
- You have 6.1 times the amount of money if you support this bill as if you oppose this bill. Image of MapLight RWA graph: http://maplight.org/us-congress/bill/112-hr-3699/1025397/total-contributions (Note: The current version of this graph shows quite a different picture. The contributions of those opposing are now greater than those for.)
- And indeed, congresswoman Maloney has gotten 40% of the contributions from Elsevier and Elsevier executives. 40% of their contributions have gone to her. Image of contributions table: http://www.michaeleisen.org/blog/?attachment_id=814
- Well, here's another IP example, but not intellectual property.
- Let's talk about broadband for a second. So, just in case you were wondering, broadband in America sucks. It's a technical term, but that's the fact—it sucks.
- Here we are in advertised download speeds, but in any number of these OECD graphs, we'd be about the same, I mean way down there with Spain, right, with Spain. Alright, so the question we have in our future is... Image of graph and data (Excel file 5a): http://www.oecd.org/sti/broadbandandtelecom/oecdbroadbandportal.htm
- ...whether this is the picture of broadband for us, or... Image of fibre connectors: http://www.flickr.com/photos/m0php/2216874537/ ## by Craig Rodway - some rights reserved Alternativ e(s): http:/ /commons.wikimedia.org/w/index.php?title=Special:Sea rch&search=fiber+connectors&redirs=1&profile=default
- ...whether this is the picture of broadband for us. I mean, right, there are lots of governments struggling with this question, including state governments. Image of network cables: http://www.flickr.com/photos/pascalcharest/308357541/in/set-72157606774804455 ## by pascal.charest - some rights reserved Alternative(s):
- So the state of North Carolina, the worst broadband state in the country, bizarrely—I don't understand it, but that's the fact—the worst in the country, had a whole bunch of cities, especially in the research triangle, decided that what they wanted to try to do was... Image of North Carolina: source not found Alternative(s): http://www.hhs.gov/recovery/images/State%20images/north_carolina.png )
- ...to launch community broadband, where the cities would help support the building of broadband infrastructure, so that the 21st century could actually come to North Carolina. And the project proved to be enormously successful.
- See, here's a graph—a little bit hard to understand, but let me make it simple. Here's the picture. These numbers in the box represent upload and download speeds for these community broadband sites. The size of the bubble is the price. OK, so if you paid $85 under this Fibrant system, you got 55 megabits upstream and 55 megabits downstream, perfectly symmetrical. And all these other community ones are way up there in price/performance. And all the ones at the bottom are the Time-Warner, AT&T DSL provisions. OK, so, experiments in community innovation proved to be brilliantly successful in bringing fast broadband to North Carolina. Then the legislators in North Carolina saw this problem and decided that they were going to deal with it, through... Image and data (Residential Broadband graph): http://www.muninetworks.org/content/analysis-faster-cheaper-broadband-north-carolina-comes-community-fiber-networks
- ...House Bill H.129 in North Carolina passed last year and signed into law by a Democratic governor.
- A blow that makes community broadband essentially banned in North Carolina. Just one more example of state lawmaking that is systematically disabling local communities from doing something about the duopoly that is denying America broadband.
- Now why would they do that? Heck if I know.
- What I know, though, is that there is endless campaign money that went into this fight to get them to do this insane public policy step.
- Or, here’s another example.
- Look at tax code. The Wall Street Journal, last year, was puzzled at the number of temporary tax provisions in our tax code* - these temporary tax provisions that expire, requiring an extender, leading to what the Wall Street Journal called... *McKinnon, John, Gary Fields, and Laura Saunders. “‘Temporary’ Tax Code Puts Nation in a Lasting Bind.” The Wall Street Journal. 14 Dec. 2010. Web. http://online.wsj.com/article/SB10001424052748703963704576005960558986604.html
- ... “‘Extender’ Mania.”* And there it is. It’s kind of maniacal the way it kind of goes up like that. What explains this explosion in “extenders”? *McKinnon, John, Gary Fields, and Laura Saunders. “‘Temporary’ Tax Code Puts Nation in a Lasting Bind.” The Wall Street Journal. 14 Dec. 2010. Web. http://online.wsj.com/article/SB10001424052748703963704576005960558986604.html
- Well, it turns out Ronald Reagan gave us our first temporary tax provision, and it was a good idea. Image of Ronald Reagan: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/File:President_Reagan_speaking_in_Minneapolis_1982.jpg
- 1981: in the tax reform package of 1981, there was the Research and Development Tax Credit. And when this was proposed, Democrats said it would never work, Republicans said of course it would work. They struck a deal.
- They said they would make it temporary...
- ...for the purpose of testing it. After a period of time, they asked the question, “did it work?” They asked economists on both sides.
- And economists on both sides said it did work.
- All economists agreed it was a really...
- ...fantastic tax credit idea.
- It spurred a kind of investment that wouldn't otherwise have been spurred.
- And therefore it made sense to be part of our tax code absolutely.
- But here's the puzzle: it is to this day temporary. It is a temporary part of our tax code.
- Why is that?
- Well, Rebecca Kysar, in this article in the Georgia Law Review, has her theory.* *Kysar, Rebecca. “The Sun Also Rises: The Political Economy of Sunset Provisions in the Tax Code.” Georgia Law Review. 2006: Vol 40. Number 2. http://papers.ssrn.com/sol3/papers.cfm?abstract_id=887388
- She says, "The principal recipients of the research credit are large U.S. manufacturing corporations...”
- “ These business entities are more than willing to invest in lobbying activities and campaign donations to ensure continuance of this large tax savings.”
- The Institute for Policy Innovation TaxBytes had a little more direct way of putting it: "This cycle has repeated for years. Congress allows the credit to lapse until another short extension is given, preceded of course by a series of fundraisers and speeches about the importance of nurturing innovation. Congress essentially uses this cycle to raise money for re-election, promising industry more predictability the next time around."* *TaxBytes. “An R&D Tax Credit That Works.” Institute for Policy Innovation. 20 Jan. 2011. http://www.ipi.org/ipi_issues/detail/an-rampd-tax-credit-that-works
- The point to recognize is that this dynamic is central to...
- ...the way Washington increasingly works.
- We architect our tax policy, at least in part to...
- ...make it easier to raise campaign funds. Not revenue for the Treasury, but revenue for the campaign treasuries. And it's not just tax policy.
- When Al Gore was vice president, he had an idea - well, his team had an idea - to deregulate a significant chunk of the communications infrastructure to support broadband development. Deregulation way below even network neutrality requirements. His team took the idea to the Hill and the guy who was running the idea told me the response from the Hill was this: they said, "Hell no! If we deregulate these guys, how are we going to raise money from them?" Image of Al Gore: http://www.flickr.com/photos/majikthise/1442923515/ All rights reserved by Lindsay Beyerstein Alternative(s): http://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/File:Al_Gore,_Vic e_President_of_the_United_States,_official_portrait_1994.jpg
- So, we tax, in part, to raise campaign funds.
- We regulate, in part, to raise campaign funds.
- Campaign funds at the core of these crucial fiscal decisions that our government makes. Image of rolled bills: http://www.flickr.com/photos/amagill/3367543296/ Some rights reserved.
- Or, one other very familiar example.
- Think about Wall Street. Image of Wall St.: http://www.flickr.com/photos/f-l-e-x/1449291608/]
- Of course, we’ve just seen this collapse, which brought down an economy. Image of DOW collapse: source not found
- What is responsible for this collapse?
- Well, as Simon Johnson and James Kwak describe in this book, 13 Bankers*... * http://13bankers.com/
- ...it's this perverse mix of...
- ...both too little government and too much government.
- Too little government in the form of...
- ...deregulation.
- The 1990s saw all sorts of "financial innovations" - what we call derivatives - but because of a mania around deregulation...
- ...these "innovations" were effectively invisible to the marketplace. The kind of regulations that traditionally apply to stocks and bonds requiring transparency and that they're traded on a public exchange and anti-fraud requirements. Those regulations didn't attach to derivatives because lawmakers changed the rules to guarantee they wouldn't attach to derivatives.
- So as my colleague Frank Partnoy calculated, in 1980, he said 98% of the assets traded in our economy were traded in these public exchanges through these transparent requirements that had anti-fraud obligations attached to the trades.
- But by 2008, 90% of the assets traded in this market were traded invisibly without any public trading obligation nor transparency obligation, not even an obligation to live up to anti-fraud requirements.
- And a shadow banking market emerged, and because nobody knew what was out there...
- ...it effectively encouraged...
- ...the bubble, which of course, when it burst, brought down this economy. Image of bubble: http://www.flickr.com/photos/zzubnik/460488845/ Some rights reserved.
- Now, but that alone wasn't enough, according to Kwak and Johnson.
- In addition to too little government, there was too much government.
- Throughout the 1990s...
- ...the government gave a clear beacon signal to Wall Street...
- ...that there was an effective government guarantee...
- ...when this bubble burst. Image of bubble: http://www.flickr.com/photos/zzubnik/460488845/ Some rights reserved.
- A government guarantee in the form of a bailout on the other side, producing what is certainly the dumbest form of socialism in the history of man.
- We socialized the risk, but privatized the benefit. They got the upside, we got the downside. Now, I know this is not an audience of lawyers, so I apologize for this technical legal term, but...
- ...this is an insanely stupid way to regulate a financial system. And why do we do it like that?
- Now that stupidity was all before 2008. It can't begin to compete with the stupidity after 2008.
- Because after 2008, after we have had the worst crisis since the Depression...
- ...after we've seen this crisis destroy an economy, our Congress essentially adds insult to injury here. Image of Capitol Building clipart: http://dir.coolclips.com/History/United_States/Landmarks_and_Monuments/Capitols/Capitol_building_arch0215.html
- Because after this damage has been done...
- ...after people independent of Wall Street, who analyzed Wall Street, attributed the damage to the failure to regulate these derivatives in an appropriate way, people on the left and people on the right, Judge Richard Posner, conservative federal judge from the 7th Circuit, in two books, attributes it directly to this failure to regulate.
- After the dean of deregulation, Alan Greenspan, confessed in testimony to Congress...
- ...that it was a mistake he made to believe the banks would be acting in the public interest as opposed to their private interest. After all of this, still, Wall Street had the power to blackmail our government, Democrats and Republicans alike to...
- ...basically get a "Get Out of Jail, Free" card, and to leave the instability that led to this collapse still in place. Image of ‘Get Out of Jail, Free’ card: rights reserved by Hasbro
- If the banks were "too big to fail" before 2008...
- ...they were only "too bigger to fail" after 2008.
- Now, what is it that explains this stupidity? Heck if I know.
- But one thing I know is that...
- ...the explosion in campaign cash from this financial sector was unmatched, anywhere, in our economy. (citation needed) 142: financial sector: 61-260 (4x) ; securities sector: 12-72 (6x)
- And indeed, in 2010, the largest chunk of contributions come from the financial service sector.* * http://www.opensecrets.org/bigpicture/sectors.php?cycle=2010&bkdn=Source&sortBy=Rank
- One final example.
- I'm sure many of you, when you saw Deepwater Horizon images had this question - and I had it too - which is... (citation needed for video clip of Deepwater Horizon)
- How was it that we had this extraordinary experimental drilling technology that was permitted without...
- ...extensive environment impact and risk studies? I mean, after all, where I come from now - sadly I can't say I come from here anymore - but I come from now...
- ...we've just gone through 9 years and 10,000 pages of environmental impact studies to permit this green energy project to go forward. (citation needed for statistic) (citation needed for video clip of offshore wind energy generators)
- So how much analysis was done of the Deepwater Horizon before it was allowed to drill its extraordinarily deep drill? (citation needed for image) © licensed through istockphoto
- The answer is 17 pages of environmental impact analysis, before they were exempted from any further environmental analysis obligations.* *Eilperin, Juliet. “U.S. exempted BP’s Gulf of Mexico drilling from environmental impact study.” The Washington Post. 5 May. 2010. Web. http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2010/05/04/AR2010050404118.html
- Now when Congress heard about this, Congress of course was shocked. (video clip from Casablanca) Image of US Capitol Building: http://www.flickr.com/photos/cowtools/321574679/in/set-72157594420171255 ## Flickr Cowtools
- Yet of course...
- ...it was Congress that had required...
- ...these fast track approval processes. And that leads us to ask the obvious question.
- Why would they leave fast track approval process, even with these experimental technologies, and the answer is, "Heck if I know.”
- This is the only thing we know for certain is...
- ...the endless cash into campaigns that drove to precisely this regulatory structure.
- Endless cash. Again, now here's the point... Image of rolled bills: http://www.flickr.com/photos/amagill/3367543296/ Some rights reserved.
- No respectable...
- ...liberal, or libertarian, or conservative...
- ...could defend these cases.
- Each of them is...
- ...an abomination from each of these political philosophies.
- So, how do they become part of our government policy structure?
- Political scientists are actually kind of uncertain.
- They say it's really complex to answer all of this.
- But here's the thing I'm quite certain of...
- I'm quite certain you believe you know.
- All I have to do is point to the money. All I have to do is point to the money... Image of hand pointing right: http://www.istockphoto.com/stock-photo-10493306-hand-pointing-right-antique-design-illustrations.php Image of rolled bills: http://www.flickr.com/photos/amagill/3367543296/]
- ...and you believe you know the root cause to this craziness.
- And my claim is...
- ...number one...
- ...it is because of cases like this...
- ...that Americans believe...
- Quote: "Money buys results in Congress.”
- 75% of Americans believe money buys results in Congress.* *Lessig, Lawrence. “Republic, Lost.” Twelve. 2011.
- It's a little bit more Democrats than Republicans, but I guarantee you before the Republicans took over, it was just as many Republicans as Democrats. So, whether it's two-thirds or three-fourths, here's the one thing we all agree about: money buys results in Congress.* * Lessig, Lawrence. “Republic, Lost.” Twelve. 2011. (p.88) Image of Republican/Democrat logos: http://vicentemanera.files.wordpress.com/2010/10/republican_democrat_logos1.jpg
- And that leads to number two.
- That belief erodes trust in the institution.
- So, last year, Gallup found that 11% of Americans had confidence in Congress. Things were looking up this year though: that number was 12%.* But then the New York Times reported that actually it's 9% of Americans who have confidence in Congress. 9%.** Put that in some context. If, in 1974, the federal government had somehow done a survey of the Soviet Union, and found that 15% of Soviet citizens had confidence in the Soviet government, we would have declared victory. Communism was obviously dead. Government had no confidence of its people. 15%. But we have 9%. *Saad, Lydia. “Congress Ranks Last in Institutions.” Gallup. July 2010. http://www.gallup.com/poll/141512/congress-ranks-last-confidence-institutions.aspx **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-fu els-volatility-in-the-2012-race.html?_r=0 Image of US Capitol Building: http://www.flickr.com/photos/cowtools/321574679/in/ set-72157594420171255 ## Flickr Cowtools
- It is certainly the case that there was more support for the British Crown in our government at the time of the Revolution than there is support for our Congress today. Image of King George III: http://southcarolina1670.wordpress.com/2010/10/26/george-iii-on-how-not-to-handle-a-crisis/] (image needed for capitol building) Image of US Capitol Building: http://www.flickr.com/photos/cowtools/321574679/in/set-72157594420171255 ## Flickr Cowtools
- And that leads number three.
- Low trust erodes participation.
- Rock the Vote, extraordinary organization, that turned out the largest number of young voters in the last election, arguably, actually, absolutely certain that they produced the election of Barack Obama, found that in 2010, a significant number of their people were not going to turn out and vote. So they asked them why. The number one reason by far, two to one over the second highest reason, was... Image of Rock the Vote logo: http://www.flickr.com/photos/smallcaps/3048313561/
- Quote: "No matter who wins, corporate interests will still have too much power and prevent real change.” * * http://www.rockthevote.com/assets/publications/research/2010/2010-rock-the-vote-nationwide-baseline.pdf
- And it's not just kids.
- The vast majority who could have voted in the last election did not vote, in part...
- ...because of this belief.
- That's point one:
- Money here erodes trust.
- Now you might ask, “Well, is that all it does?”
- Is that the only thing it does? I mean, if all that it does is erode trust, maybe we're just wrong, maybe we shouldn't worry about it. Because, you know, it's actually not doing any harm, and there's no reason to worry that maybe it's screwing things up.
- So, does it do something other than just erode trust. What does money actually do here?
- Well, it turns out - we can think about this in two ways. What does it do to the substance of what Congress does, and then what does it do to Congress's agenda? And about the substance, there actually is among political scientists a little bit of a controversy.
- I was on a radio show with Bradley Smith, former head of the Federal Elections Commission, and he uttered this on the radio show: "The evidence is pretty overwhelming that the money does not play much of a role in what goes on in terms of legislative voting patterns and legislative behavior. The consensus about that among people who have studied it is roughly the same as the consensus among scientists that global warming is taking place." * Now to be clear, Bradley Smith is not a global warming skeptic, he is a corruption skeptic. * Lessig, Lawrence. “Republic, Lost.” Twelve. 2011.
- I was so astonished by this I had to Tweet it at the time. I got a lot of trouble for my hashtag, but that just means Bradley Smith, that's what that stands for.
- So what is the evidence here that results are actually driven by the money? Well, it turns out there's...
- ...an increasing amount of statistical work that's trying to demonstrate statistically and powerfully the connection between contributions and influence.* *Peoples, Clayton D. “Contributor Influence in Congress: Social Ties and PAC Effects on U.S. House Policymaking.” The Sociological Quarterly. 2010. 51:649-77.
- But I find the most compelling this work by Martin Gilens from Princeton, who looked at 1781 public opinion surveys. And these public opinion surveys tracked the attitudes of people, and of course, because they were well done surveys, you could see the attitudes of people as a function of whether you were the rich or the rest of us. And what Gilens then did is he looked at 887 of these surveys where what the top group - 10% of us wanted - was different from what the rest of us - 90% of us - wanted. And he asked the question: “When 10% want to go left, and 90% want to go right, which way does Congress go?” And this is what he found: "I find that when Americans with different income levels differ in their policy preferences, actual policy outcomes strongly reflect the preferences of the most affluent but bear virtually no relationship to the preferences of the poor or middle-income Americans."* "A vast discrepancy" exists between what our Congress would be doing, if our Congress were following what the people wanted, and what our Congress does given our Congress follows what the most affluent want. Now, you could say, “Well, the most affluent are just the smartest, the most educated.” And, as a professor, I'd love to believe that it were true. But it turns out - sad to confess - the most affluent are not the best educated. They’re not the wisest. This is not government doing wise public policy choices. This is government following what the richest in society want, and guess what. They’re also the people giving the most to the campaigns. So, that’s substance. *Gilens, Martin. 2005. “Inequality and Democratic Responsiveness .” Public Opinion Quarterly 69(5):778-896. http://www.princeton.edu/%7Emgilens/Gilen s%20homepage%20materials/Inequality%20and%20Democratic%20Resp/Gilens%202005 1781; 887
- What about agenda?
- Here, the argument’s a little bit easier, and so, this claim that it doesn’t affect legislative behavior is just absolutely false. Here’s a way to see it...
- If I asked you what was the number one issue in the first four months of 2011 that Congress spent it’s time dealing with? You know, we’re in the middle of two wars at that period, huge unemployment problem, we had a budget crisis coming up, there was still a lot to do in health care. So, what was the number one issue that they spun their wheels dealing with?
- The answer is the Bank Swipe Fee controversy. The Bank Swipe Fee controversy dominated the Congressional agenda.* Now, what was that controversy? You might have missed it - I know you were busy the first four months of last year. The Bank Swipe Fee controversy is the question whether when you swipe your debit cards banks get to charge more, or retailers get to pay less. That’s the controversy. *Carter, Zach and Ryan Grim. “Swiped: Banks, Merchants And Why Washington Doesn’t Work For You.” Huffington Post. 28 April. 2011. Web. http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2011/04/28/swipe-fees-interchange-banks-merchants_n_853574.html
- A lot of money on the table. “Swipe fees” are an extraordinarily lucrative industry for some.
- And they spent an enormous amount of time dealing with this issue because as this Huffington Post piece put it, “The clock never ticks down to zero in Washington: One year’s law is the next year’s repeal target. Politicians, showered with cash from card companies and giant retailers alike, have been moving back and forth between camps, paid handsomely for their shifting allegiances.” And then again it dawns on you. Shocked you should be, if you have and faith in our system,
- The very agenda Congress sets - the things they work on versus things they don’t work on are driven as well by the desire to raise moneys.
- So why don’t we address the unemployment issue?
- Turns out it doesn’t pay so well in campaign fundraising to address unemployment.
- Ok, so...
- This is point 2.
- Money distorts what our congress does. It distorts the issues they work on, and it distorts the results relative to the baseline of what the results would be, if in fact we were following what we, the people, wanted.
- But is it corruption?
- After all, the Supreme Court, in a decision that will become a toddler in just two days - the Citizens United decision* - concluded that... * http://www.law.cornell.edu/supct/html/08-205.ZS.html Image of Supreme Court building: http://www.clker.com/clipart-146547.html
- ...independent expenditures - what we now know as Super-Pac type expenditures - including those made by corporations, do not give rise to corruption or the appearance of corruption. So if they don’t give rise to the appearance of corruption, is what I’ve described here corruption? Because I have not said anybody is guilty of bribery. I have not said anybody made any quid pro quo. I’ve not said anybody has violated any federal law. So have I described corruption? Image of Supreme Court building: http://www.clker.com/clipart-146547.html
- Well, with all due respect to the Supreme Court, what the Supreme Court says here is totally wrong. We have very precise measures in the law and I can show you exactly what totally wrong is, but it is totally wrong...it’s about this much wrong. Image of Supreme Court building: http://www.clker.com/clipart-146547.html
- This is plainly corruption, and I have my blackboard here to prove it. Plainly corruption. And here’s how you can see it... Image of wooden frame: http://www.kirupa.com/developer/flash8/wooden_frame.htm Image of chalk mask: source not found
- The framers of our constitution gave us what they called a Republic. But what they meant by a Republic was a Representative Democracy. Image of “The Constitution”: “The Constitution” by Barry Faulkner, Mural the Rotunda of the Capitol. Source: National Archives
- And what the meant by a Representative Democracy, as Federalist 52 describes... Image of Federalist Paper: public domain
- ...is a Democracy where there’d be a branch of government which ought to be quote “dependent upon the people alone.”* * http://www.constitution.org/fed/federa52.htm Image of US Capitol Building: http://www.flickr.com/photos/cowtools/321574 679/in/set-72157594420171255 ## Flickr Cowtools
- So, here’s the model of government. We have the people. We have the government. (I do my own slides. It’s pretty cool the way that bounces there, right?) So, people. Governments. This kind of marionette relationship. Dependency is clear and exclusive. Here’s the problem... Image of Capitol Building clipart: http://dir.coolclips.com/History/United_States/Landmarks_and_Monuments/Capitols/Capitol_building_arch0215.html
- Congress has evolved a different dependence.
- It's not just dependence upon the people. It's increasingly dependence upon the funders. Image of Capitol Building clipart: http://dir.coolclips.com/History/United_States/Landmarks_and_Monuments/Capitols/Capitol_building_arch0215.html
- As members spend between 30 and 70 % of their time raising money to get back to Congress or to get their party back into power... * *Lessig, Lawrence. “Republic, Lost.” Twelve. 2011.
- ...they develop a kind of “sixth sense.” A constant awareness about how what they might do will affect their ability to raise money.
- They become, in the words of the X-Files, shape-shifters, constantly adjusting themselves in light of what they know will raise money. Not on issue 1 to 10, but on issue 11 to 2444.
- Leslie Byrne, a democrat from Virginia, describes that when she went to Congress she was told by a colleague quote "Always lean to the green." Image of Leslie Byrne: source not found
- And then to clarify, she went on: "He was not an environmentalist."
- Now the point is this is a dependence too.
- And it is a different and conflicting dependence from...
- ...a dependence on the people alone.
- Because surprise, surprise...
- ... “The Funders” turn out not to be “The People.”
- .26% of americans give more than $200 in a congressional campaign.* * http://www.opensecrets.org/bigpicture/donordemographics.php?cycle=2010
- .05% of Americans max out in a Congressional campaign.* * http://www.opensecrets.org/bigpicture/donordemographics.php?cycle=2010
- .01%, one out of a thousand Americans, give more than $10,000 to all candidates in a congressional cycle.* * http://www.opensecrets.org/bigpicture/donordemographics.php?cycle=2010
- So the Occupy Wall Street people are so proud of the "We are the 99%"...bad marketing, right? We're either the 99.74% or... Image of ‘We are the 99%’: http://ratetees.com/we-are-the-99-percent-occupy-wall-street/
- ...the 99.95% or... Image of ‘We are the 99%’: http://ratetees.com/we-are-the-99-percent-occupy-wall-street/
- ...the 99.99% who don't have the power that the .26 or .05 or .01% have because they are funding the campaigns. Image of ‘We are the 99%’: http://ratetees.com/we-are-the-99-percent-occupy-wall-street/
- Now this is absolutely clear. This is...
- ...corruption. (Yeah…you should clap for that, that's really important…let the Supreme Court hear!)
- It is not the corruption of money secreted in brown paper bags, handed out to members of Congress. You know, there used to be safes in the offices of Congress…safes. And you think, “Why would they pay members of Congress in cash?” And - it turned out - they didn't. It's just members found cash on their desk and they needed a safe place to keep it, so they had safes. That doesn't happen anymore. Congress, in that sense, is as clean as it has ever been, and it is very very clean. Image of brown bag: http://www.istockphoto.com/stock-photo-5356754-brown-paper-bag.php
- It is not an institution filled with the likes of Rod Blagojevich. But even though it's not... Image of Rod Blagojevich: source not found Alternative: http://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/File:Blagojevich_cropped.jpg
- ...this is still a “corruption” ...
- ...relative to the framers baseline of a system dependent upon the people alone. They're not. Image of Capitol Dome: http://www.flickr.com/photos/cowtools/321574679/in/set-72157594420171255
- This is a “dependence corruption” because...
- ...they have the wrong dependence.
- It is corruption because they follow the funders at least in places where the funders conflict with what the people want.
- That, my friends, is how money corrupts.
- The wrong dependency...
- ...distorts the work and...
- ...weakens the trust of the institution.
- That's how this institution gets bent.
- So what's a plan for doing something about it?
- A plan.
- OK, well let's step back (start with zero here).
- Recall the sacred text: "There are a thousand hacking at the branches of evil."
- Henry David Thoreau. Image of Henry David Thoreau: public domain http://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/File:Henry_David_Thoreau.jpg
- 1846.
- On Walden. Image of Walden Pond: http://www.concordlibrary.org/scollect/walden/1.htm
- "There are a thousand hacking at the branches of evil...”
- “ ...to one who is striking at the root."
- Let’s call that one a root striker. (I tried to convince Jon Stewart of that. He said, “No no no, Batman would be better.” But OK, put it aside.) Root striker: one striking at the root. Image of Batman: rights reserved by DC Comics
- Now, here's the problem.
- The problem is not that we have an institution filled with Blagojeviches. Image of Rod Blagojevich: source not found Alternative: http://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/File:Blagojevich_cropped.jpg
- The problem is the system - not evil souls.
- And so the solution is...
- ...not to lock up all sorts of people in Congress. Some we should. Blagojevich we should. But that's not going to solve the problem. Image of Rod Blagojevich: source not found Alternative: http://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/File:Blagojevich_cropped.jpg Image of prison bars: http://www.istockphoto.com/stock-photo-1073124-prison-bars.php
- We solve the problem with a Thoreauvian insight. Image of Henry David Thoreau: public domain http://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/File:Henry_David_Thoreau.jpg
- We solve the problem by stopping our persistent pattern of hacking at all the different branches of evil and...
- ...spend a cycle or two striking at the root.
- If the systemic problem here is...
- ...that “The Funders” are not “The People”...
- ...the systemic solution is...
- ...to find a way to make “The Funders” = “The People.”
- To give them a way (I know that looks like one word. I don't mean give Congress away, I know a lot of people want to do that) but I mean give them a way to...
- ...fund without Faust.
- Without selling their souls and therefore...
- ...without alienating America because America believes they've sold their souls for a tiny bit of money.
- And the one way to do this - and I think increasingly the only way to do this - is finally, as a people, to commit firmly and openly to...
- ...the need for publicly funding public elections.
- We have to replace a system of large dollar funded campaigns with... Image of $100 bills: http://www.flickr.com/photos/amagill/3366720659/
- ...small dollar funded campaigns. Image of $100 bills: http://www.flickr.com/photos/amagill/3366720659/
- And we can follow the model of states that have experimented like Arizona or Maine or Connecticut to...
- ...opt into systems where candidates need to...
- ...take small dollar contributions only, and through a variety of different tricks, those contributions can...
- ...get amplified, so they can afford to run winning campaigns without taking large donations.
- There are many ways to do this.
- In my book 'Republic, Lost' (really poetic, right?) 'Republic, Lost'...
- ...I describe one that I call the Grant and Franklin project. Image of Franklin: public domain Image of Grant: http://www.istockphoto.com/stock-photo-13592355-u-s-fifty-dollar-bill-ulysses-s-grant.php
- It looks something like this: You first have to stipulate with me that every American “contributes” at least $50 to the Federal Treasury - not an income tax necessarily, but in some form of taxes. So under the proposal that I have, I say, let's take that first $50 you contribute and let's rebate it in the form of... Image of Grant: http://www.istockphoto.com/stock-photo-13592355-u-s-fifty-dollar-bill-ulysses-s-grant.php Image of US Treasury: http://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/File:US-Treasury-Large.jpg
- ...a Democracy voucher. Image of Grant: http://www.istockphoto.com/stock-photo-13592355-u-s-fifty-dollar-bill-ulysses-s-grant.php
- And a candidate can get this Democracy voucher from you. You can give it to a candidate - to any number of candidates - if that candidate agrees to...
- Number one: [That candidate agrees to] fund his or her campaign only with Democracy vouchers. Image of Grant: http://www.istockphoto.com/stock-photo-13592355-u-s-fifty-dollar-bill-ulysses-s-grant.php
- Plus...
- ...contributions limited to $100 a citizen. Grant and Franklin. Image of Franklin: public domain
- So, you fund your campaigns with small dollar contributions only. Image of Grant: http://www.istockphoto.com/stock-photo-13592355-u-s-fifty-dollar-bill-ulysses-s-grant.php Image of Franklin: public domain
- And if you don't allocate the money, if somebody doesn't allocate their voucher, then...
- ...we can allocate it to the parties, or, in states like California, where most people are not a member of parties, it can go into some democracy-supporting entity. Image of Republican/Democrat logos: http://vicentemanera.files.wordpress.com/2010/10/republican_democrat_logos1.jpg
- Right, now, $50 a voter is seven billion dollars.
- The total amount raised in 2010 was 1.8 billion dollars.
- This is three times the total amount raised in 2010 not even counting the $100 contributions. Image of Grant: http://www.istockphoto.com/stock-photo-13592355-u-s-fifty-dollar-bill-ulysses-s-grant.php Image of Franklin: public domain
- It is real money that would make funding elections in this small dollar way possible and effective, and make it possible for candidates to opt into a world where they didn't have to take the large contributions to fund their campaign. Image of Grant: http://www.istockphoto.com/stock-photo-13592355-u-s-fifty-dollar-bill-ulysses-s-grant.php Image of Franklin: public domain
- But would it be enough to clean the system? I used to believe it would. Two years ago I thought it would, and even after the Supreme Court decided Citizens United, I was not yet convinced that that would change the fact that public funding alone would be enough.
- But I now believe that public funding alone is not enough.
- We've entered the age of the Super-PAC. Not just the happy Super-PACs. Image of Colbert PAC screen: http://www.colbertsuperpac.com/home.php
- But the very dark Super-Pacs. And we've seen it (that's Tony Saprano in case you don't recognize). So we've entered this kind of Super-PAC dynamic, which actually political scientists have not begun to model but which is absolutely driving the way Washington functions today. Image of Tony Soprano: rights reserved by HBO?
- Evan Bayh, who retired from the United States Senate, described this to me on a panel that I was sitting with him on. He said the biggest fear that incumbents now have, remember incumbents, the people who had no fear in the past, the people who were guaranteed reelection, who had all the money in the world, who had super poll numbers. Incumbents were in power. The biggest fear incumbents now have is that 30 days out from an election, some Super-PAC’s going to come in and drop a million dollars in the district. Image of Evan Bayh: source not found
- And so what is the incumbent supposed to do? Because, by definition, if that happens, he can't turn to his largest contributors; they've maxed out. So, who can he turn to? The only people he can turn to is Super-PACs on his side. But, it's a little late to do that at the last moment. Image of Evan Bayh: source not found
- So what he's got to do is buy Super-PAC insurance in advance. Image of Evan Bayh: source not found
- So that if some bomb gets dropped on your side, against you, you have somebody who's willing to drop a bomb against them. Image of bomb clip art: http://www.wpclipart.com/weapons/bomb/bomb_4.png.html
- So, how do you buy Super-PAC insurance? Well, they don't have many of those left anymore - but that would have been an idea before - but now you buy your insurance the way you buy any insurance,
- You have to pay your premium in advance. How do you pay your premium in advance?
- Well, the Super-PAC says things like, "We'd love to help you Senator, but we can only support people who support us at at least 80% according to our charter.”
- So, without even spending one dollar, the Super-PACs are able to induce Congressmen and Senators to behave exactly how they want them to behave, so that if they get attacked they have a reliable protection racket that can step forward and answer on the other side. So, the incumbents are no longer the barons. The incumbents are the vassals - vassals to barons who run super-pacs, radically shifting the dynamic inside of Washington.
- Which means here, I think, that...
- ...we're going to need much more than...
- ...just public funding. Image of Franklin: public domain Image of Grant: http://www.istockphoto.com/stock-photo-13592355-u-s-fifty-dollar-bill-ulysses-s-grant.php
- What we're going to need as well is...
- ...an amendment to the constitution. Now, I know a lot of people are really anxious about this. A lot of people have really a lot of faith in what our framers of our constitution did; they, of course, made no mistakes at all. So, how could they have made a mistake here? And I just want to, you know, allay your concerns. I've actually done my own research and discovered there's a forgotten amendment that the framers actually did pass, Image of Article V: public domain
- We just have to get it re-ratified. It goes something like this: all that we need to do is to reaffirm what they said 240 years ago. "Congress shall have the power to limit, but not to ban independent political expenditures within 90 days of an election." That amendment, which says you can't silence anybody - nobody should be silenced, whether it's corporations, or foreigners, or dolphins - everybody should be allowed to put their position out there. But Congress has to have the ability to make sure that they can't so dominate the process that everybody wonders whether they're shape-shifting now for the independent expenditures just like they're shape-shifting for the contributions. That amendment is an essential part of the reform we need.
- What we need then is...
- ...these two things: public funding and a limit on these independent expenditures to... Image of Franklin: public domain Image of Grant: http://www.istockphoto.com/stock-photo-13592355-u-s-fifty-dollar-bill-ulysses-s-grant.php
- produce what we might imagine - dream of - as a trustworthy congress. Image of US Capitol Building: http://www.flickr.com/photos/cowtools/321574679/in/set-72157594420171255 ## Flickr Cowtools
- And if we had those two...
- If we had a world where small dollar contributions were the only thing driving campaigns, then...
- ...we all could believe, as we all want to believe, that when Congress does something idiotic, it's either because there's too many democrats or because they're too many Republicans, but... Image of UFO: http://www.flickr.com/photos/ndoval48/3206820367/
- ...not because of the money
- Because we would have set up a condition where trust was possible. Because the thing that leads us to mistrust would have been removed...
- ...if we can produce that system.
- Alright, now, how would we get there?
- I don’t think it’s hard to see the problem.
- I don’t even think it’s hard to describe a solution.
- What’s hard - what may be impossibly hard - is...
- to imagine the political movement that brings that solution about. And the reason this is so hard is a reason suggested to me by...
- ...Congressman Jim Cooper, a Democrat from Tennessee, a man who’s been in Congress as long as about 20 other members of Congress. And in describing how this institution changed, Cooper said to me, “The problem with Congress is that Capitol Hill has now become a farm league for K Street.” K Street, where all the lobbyists work. Image of Jim Cooper: http://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/File:Jim_Cooper.jpg
- So, what he means by that is members and staffers and bureaucrats inside the beltway have...
- ...an increasingly common business model.
- A business model focused on...
- ...their life after government.
- Their life as lobbyists.
- Public Citizen calculated that in 1998 and 2004, 50% of Senators left to become lobbyists and... * * Public Citizen. “Congressional Revolving Doors: The Journey From Congress to K-Street.” Congress Watch. July 2005. http://www.google.com/url?sa=t&rct=j&q=&esrc=s&source=web&cd=1&cad=rja&ved=0CDUQFjAA&url=http%3A%2F%2Fwww.cleanupwashington.org%2Fdocuments%2FRevolveDoor.pdf&ei=bqUnUYPIOYbCigL0zoGoCg&usg=AFQjCNGnJUnVzb6yTS4fhj75viFNcuk0xw&sig2=i6N4q_BppS_xWAD6_W6WWQ&bvm=bv.42768644,d.cGE
- 42% of members of the House, and those numbers have only gone up.* * Public Citizen. “Congressional Revolving Doors: The Journey From Congress to K-Street.” Congress Watch. July 2005. http://www.google.com/url?sa=t&rct=j&q=&esrc=s&source=web&cd=1&cad=rja&ved=0CDUQFjAA&url=http%3A%2F%2Fwww.cleanupwashington.org%2Fdocuments%2FRevolveDoor.pdf&ei=bqUnUYPIOYbCigL0zoGoCg&usg=AFQjCNGnJUnVzb6yTS4fhj75viFNcuk0xw&sig2=i6N4q_BppS_xWAD6_W6WWQ&bvm=bv.42768644,d.cGE
- Everybody in this system depends upon...
- ...the system surviving.
- And, if that’s true, how could we ever imagine the political movement that...
- ...would change this system and deny a significant number of them their retirement plan because they won’t be million dollar lobbyists.
- And so here’s then the challenge: to find a way around...
- ...this cancer that has become our government in DC. And the first step to doing this is to recognize that political issues are not... Image of breast cancer cell: National Cancer Institute http://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/File:Breast_cancer_cell_%282%29.jpg
- ...just divided between left and right in America. That’s not the most important division. The critical division that is increasingly making itself known is the division between...
- ...inside versus outside government.
- This is the key. Image of key: http://www.istockphoto.com/stock-illustration-20236059-ancient-key-set-silhouettes.php
- The key is to enable what we can call outsider politics.
- Which means not some top-down organized structure for taking over the government, but...
- ...this grassroots bottom-up structure.
- Not a politics filled with politicians.
- But a politics filled with people who swear off becoming politicians, but are citizens.
- Not a professional politics.
- But an amateur politics.
- In the sense of an amateur not someone who’s doing something for the money but for the love of what they’re doing.
- These are people who are doing something not for the power but for the love of the Nation.
- Not the kind of read-only politics that governed politics in the 20th century. 1984 Apple advertisement: rights reserved by Apple?
- But instead a sort of read-write politics where...
- ...people are active and engaged and awoken.
- A politics where the sovereign, us, is awake and can take power back that we need to fix the damage that they’ve done.
- That’s outsider politics.
- Now, this outsider politics needs to do two incredibly difficult things at the same time.
- Number one: it has to know how to be cross-partisan. That doesn’t mean giving up political commitments of one side or another, but it means figuring out how two radically different perspectives might be able to agree. Not on a common end. But a common enemy.
- And I think that’s possible if this cross-partisan movement focuses not on the substantive fights we might have, but on the “rules of the game” -- the conditions within which the system operates that leads us to believe that it’s a fair or trustworthy system or not.
- Now both of these are extremely hard to do.
- Extremely hard to be disciplined about either of these.
- The cross-partisanship is difficult because always it’s the other side who’s the enemy -- the evil ones. The right is the enemy or the left is the enemy. That’s what gets us going. That’s what makes this fun.
- And focus on rules is boring because the passion is in the substance, equality, or fighting for a just society. Or some smaller tax. Or whatever you want to fight for. That’s where it’s exciting.
- The rules are not exciting, except to a rule geeks (like me).
- But the point is both of these kinds of commitments are necessary.
- Because what we need here is constitutional change to happen. And in our system, constitutional change only happens if three quarters of the states agree. 75% of states have to line up to any such change.
- Now, we’ve seen the beginnings of such a politics in the United States, but I think these beginnings have failed.
- So, (I think) MoveOn is the first kind of rustling to this. They launched in 1998 to bring sense to the insanity of a system that was focusing impeachment on a man who slept with his assistant and lied about it. MoveOn said, “Are you kidding? This is the most important problem? Let’s censure the man and move on.” But quickly, the movement fell to become a movement on the left -- not cross-partisan anymore, but a movement on the left.
- And the Tea Party too was born first as outsiders, claiming to be reformers, but very quickly became insiders on the right.
- And even the Occupy Movement, which was born first as outsiders on the left, surprising everyone, exciting an extraordinary range of Americans, standing for ideas that Americans hadn’t heard articulated in 20 years. But they too quickly became aloof from a political movement demanding and affecting real change. @cumbaya
- Now, (I think that) if these different movements can be brought about two points in a certain direction.
- To find a way to speak really for the 99%.
- And to focus in ways that could make...
- ...change possible. Then, these movements could begin to bring about the recovery of this Republic, lost.
- That is a plan.
- Now, here’s the thing: we don’t know...
- ...whether it’s even possible for this democracy to succeed in this. It’s not clear; we haven’t done it in a long time -- in a hundred years. It’s not clear we have the power.
- But I think what we do know is...
- ...how such a plan starts.
- It starts, number one, with a certain kind of clarity.
- It starts with a clarity of Theroux. Image of Henry David Thoreau: public domain http://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/File:Henry_David_Thoreau.jpg
- It starts with the clarity of the rootstriker.
- Pointing at a common ground
- The common ground here is corruption and getting people to recognize the common ground from either side of the political perspective.
- So, pick your issue on the right or the left. And begin to connect it and link them together.
- So, whether it’s health care reform on the left...
- ...or government bailouts on the right.
- Or global warming on the left...
- ...or complex taxes on the right.
- Or financial reform on the left...
- ...or financial reform on the right.
- The point is to get people to recognize there is a root cause to this systemically misfiring government.
- And this is its picture -- a government focused not upon us, but upon the funders. Image of Capitol Building clipart: http://dir.coolclips.com/History/United_States/Landmarks_and_Monuments/Capitols/Capitol_building_arch0215.html
- And root strikers need to convince...
- ...and to get...
- ... we, the people, to see this, so that we, the people, can act in this insider politics way to change it. Image of ‘We the People’: public domain
- And the second way to do this is with courage.
- So, a man, Arnold Hiatt, a very shy guy...
- ... (this is the biggest picture I could find of him on the Internet) ... Image of Arnold Hiatt: http://www.motherjones.com/files/legacy/news/special_reports/coinop_congress/97mojo_400/AHiatt.JPG
- ... he was the president of stride rite, ...
- ... made great shoes like Keds.
- He’s also a loyal Democrat.
- 1996: he was the second largest contributor to the Democratic Party.
- So, Bill Clinton, in 1997, invited him to a dinner... Image of Bill Clinton: http://www.flickr.com/photos/sskennel/817113935/
- ...at the Mayflower Hotel...Image of Mayflower Hotel: source not found Alternative(s): http://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/File:Mayflower_Hotel.jpg
- ...with about 30 other fat cats, to talk about what Bill Clinton should do with the remaining years of his second term. Each of these contributors was asked to stand up and speak. We don’t have any photographs of the event. Image of fat cat: © licensed via istockphoto
- (But I kind of picture Arnold standing, looking something like this, as he addressed the President.) And he said this to the President: something like, “I know you’re an admirer of Franklin Delano Roosevelt...” Image of Norman Rockwell’s ‘Freedom of Speech’: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/File:Freedom_of_Speech.jpg Rights reserved.
- “ ...so I want you to put yourself in Roosevelt’s shoes..” Image of FDR: http://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/File:FDR_in_1933.jpg
- “ ...in 1940...”
- “ ...when Roosevelt recognized he needed to convince a reluctant nation to wage a war to save democracy.”
- He said, “You too, Mr. President.”
- “ You too must convince a reluctant nation to wage a war to save democracy.”
- “ Not a war against fascists.” Image of Nuremberg Rally: Reichsparteitag 1934.
- “ But a war against a certain attitude that comes from us fat cats. An attitude that says merely because we are rich, we are entitled to direct government policy. Merely because we are successful in the marketplace, we have the right to get the President on the other end of a phone. Merely because we are powerful in one sphere, we are entitled to be powerful in another. People who have succeeded in convincing America that democracy doesn’t work.” Now, put yourself in Hiatt’s shoes, as he’s surrounded by his friends -- these fat cats -- and he’s just called these fat cats out as the problem with American democracy. Image of fat cat: © licensed via istockphoto
- As you can imagine, there was a little bit of silence after he spoke in that room.
- The only published account of the evening* said that... *Makinson, Larry. “Speaking Freely: Washington Insiders Talk About Money in Politics.” 2003.
- ... “Clinton’s response effectively slashed Hiatt to pieces, humiliating him in front of the group.”
- Now, 15 years later.
- It’s time we recognize that...
- ...Arnold Hiatt was right.
- It is time we convince a reluctant nation to wage a war to save democracy.
- But where Arnold Hiatt was wrong...
- ...was in his belief that it would be politicians that would wage that war. It won’t be politicians.
- It’ll be citizens.
- It’ll be us.
- It’ll be root strikers.
- I hope it will be you.
- It is our job.
- It requires our courage.
- Because it is our Republic...
- ...that we have lost.
- Ours.
- And not theirs.
- They took it away.
- We let them.
- (Now let me end with one other link.)
- (This is an extraordinary foundation, Long Now.) But I want you to recognize the way in which thinking about the long term is also a story about recognizing... The Long Now Foundation: http://longnow.org/
- ...responsibility.
- So, 1989. (I’m sure many of you recognize/remember this event, when) A ship under the command of Joseph Hazelwood ran aground in William Sound and spilled 11 million gallons of oil into the ocean.
- This is captain Joseph Hazelwood calling in the accident. (audio) Now, I’m sure many of you are asking yourself the question that was immediately on everyone’s mind after the accident.
- Whether Captain Hazelwood was intoxicated when he was captaining a supertanker. He denied it. He said he had only four vodkas before he got on the ship. His blood alcohol level said he must have been at least six times the legal limit when he got on board. But he and his lawyers fought it. There was a huge litigation around it. He was not absolutely convicted of being intoxicated at the time he was in charge. Image of Joe Hazelwood: source not found
- So, let’s say there was some doubt. What there’s no doubt about is that he had a problem with alcohol.
- His mother testified that he had a problem with alcohol.
- In 1985, four years before the accident, Exxon treated him for his problem of alcohol.
- In 1989, after the accident, the president said he thought he had mastered his problem.
- But in ’86, he had his driver’s license revoked for a DUI.
- And in ’88, the year before the accident, he had had his driver’s license revoked for a DUI. At the time he was captaining a supertanker, he was not allowed to drive a VW Beetle.
- Now, again, forget though, about...
- ...Hazelwood here. Image of Joe Hazelwood: source not found
- What I want you to do is to think about...
- ...those around Captain Hazelwood.
- The other officers.
- People who could have picked up a phone.
- While a drunk was driving a supertanker.
- I want you to think about people who did nothing.
- What do we think about them?
- I ask this in this way because as I think about the problems I’ve just described tonight, I increasingly think that...
- ...we are they.
- Our nation increasingly faces critical problems...
- ...requiring serious attention.
- But we have institutions incapable of that attention.
- Distracted institutions.
- Unable to focus.
- And who is to blame for that?
- Who is responsible?
- It is too easy... Image of Rod Blagojevich: source not found Alternative: http://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/File:Blagojevich_cropped.jpg
- ...to focus responsibility on the evil people. It’s not just the responsibility of the evil people.
- It’s also the responsibility of the good people.
- The decent people.
- The people who could have but didn’t pick up a phone.
- It’s the responsibility of us.
- We.
- The most privileged.
- Because the most outrageous part to the problem I’ve described tonight is that...
- ...these are corruptions primed by some of the most privileged.
- They are permitted by the passivity of the most privileged as well.
- Permitted.
- When Franklin was carried from the Constitutional Convention in August, 1787, he was stopped by a woman in the street who asked Mr. Franklin, “What have you wrought?” And Franklin responded, “A Republic, madame, if you can keep it.” Image of Franklin: public domain
- A Republic.
- A representative democracy.
- A government dependent on the people alone.
- We have lost that Republic.
- And we all have the responsibility to act...
- ...to get it back.
- Thank you very much.
- 40