1
00:00:01,890 --> 00:00:06,040
>>Male Presenter: I think most people here know Larry Lessig. You should know him either

2
00:00:06,040 --> 00:00:13,310
from his work at Stanford or Harvard, Creative Commons, helped out the Electronic Frontier

3
00:00:13,310 --> 00:00:17,260
Foundation, the Sunlight Foundation. There's a whole bunch of places you should know him

4
00:00:17,260 --> 00:00:17,730
from.

5
00:00:17,730 --> 00:00:21,960
But really the reason why we wanna pay attention to what he has to say is because he's been

6
00:00:21,960 --> 00:00:27,220
right on so many issues, whether arguing in front of the Supreme Court, talking about

7
00:00:27,220 --> 00:00:32,550
things like copyright extension, or--if people noticed a few years ago--he started to move

8
00:00:32,550 --> 00:00:36,039
away from copyright and started to talk about broader issues.

9
00:00:36,039 --> 00:00:42,050
Specifically, the influence or potential corruption of money in politics and a lot of institutions

10
00:00:42,050 --> 00:00:47,050
that are important in the United States. So, I think it's important that we make sure that

11
00:00:47,050 --> 00:00:52,960
Larry not be a Cassandra. You know, the prophet who could hear the future, but no one would

12
00:00:52,960 --> 00:00:54,579
ever believe her.

13
00:00:54,579 --> 00:00:58,280
And so, I think it's important for us to listen to what he's got to say today. Read through

14
00:00:58,280 --> 00:01:03,089
the book. It's really good. Don't forget to badge in. But also, after the talk, please

15
00:01:03,089 --> 00:01:07,979
take a little while and ask, "How can we try to make sure that he's not a Cassandra--that

16
00:01:07,979 --> 00:01:09,470
we do take these issues seriously?"

17
00:01:09,470 --> 00:01:14,090
Because, I think, the influence of money in politics and in our institutions is probably

18
00:01:14,090 --> 00:01:19,360
the most important issue facing us today in the United States. So with that, thanks very

19
00:01:19,360 --> 00:01:21,310
much to Larry Lessig.

20
00:01:21,310 --> 00:01:22,590
[applause]

21
00:01:22,590 --> 00:01:34,700
>>Lawrence Lessig: Thank, Matt. And it's great to be back. I have one sacred text. "There

22
00:01:34,700 --> 00:01:42,200
are a thousand hacking at the branches of evil." Henry David Thoreau, 1846, on Walden.

23
00:01:42,200 --> 00:01:50,619
There are a thousand hacking at the branches of evil to one who is striking at the roots.

24
00:01:50,619 --> 00:01:57,320
Imagine a letter written by a young woman. "There were two clocks regulating our life--the

25
00:01:57,320 --> 00:02:05,219
one on the wall and the one in the bottle. We built our life around those clocks. He

26
00:02:05,219 --> 00:02:07,420
slept late so mornings were bliss.

27
00:02:07,420 --> 00:02:13,140
“We could play and laugh without fear. But at some point, he would awake. And soon after

28
00:02:13,140 --> 00:02:19,390
he woke, the bottle was opened. And then the older the day grew, the more terrifying my

29
00:02:19,390 --> 00:02:24,360
life became. He was happy at first--just before dinner, the most happy.

30
00:02:24,360 --> 00:02:28,290
“That's the only time I spoke to him, a moment to pretend I had a father who had a

31
00:02:28,290 --> 00:02:33,269
feeling of love. He'd smile. He'd laugh. But then, he'd grow irritated. And by the end

32
00:02:33,269 --> 00:02:38,900
of dinner, he was angry and if we weren't gone--usually just hiding in our room by nine--he'd

33
00:02:38,900 --> 00:02:42,190
be violent. He hit me more than once.

34
00:02:42,190 --> 00:02:46,349
“Once he tried to do something worse than hitting me and then I left and I never went

35
00:02:46,349 --> 00:02:54,659
back. We struggled to do many things in that house to keep food in the house, to keep the

36
00:02:54,659 --> 00:03:02,440
winter out of the house, to keep the house. But the one thing we never even spoke about

37
00:03:02,440 --> 00:03:04,299
was getting him to stop.

38
00:03:04,299 --> 00:03:10,560
“I don't know why. The bottle was just part of our life. We learned to live with it. Anything

39
00:03:10,560 --> 00:03:22,040
more just seemed impossible." Now, the thing about us--we humans--is that we adapt, we

40
00:03:22,040 --> 00:03:24,909
adjust, we learn to live with it until we can't.

41
00:03:24,909 --> 00:03:31,330
And then a certain fever breaks out and if we're lucky, we have this Thoreauvian moment--a

42
00:03:31,330 --> 00:03:37,299
recognition that we have to stop hacking at the branches and start striking at the roots,

43
00:03:37,299 --> 00:03:44,189
the recognition that we have to become this sense of a root striker. OK. So, here's the

44
00:03:44,189 --> 00:03:45,959
argument here.

45
00:03:45,959 --> 00:03:52,379
I think that there's this feeling among too many of us Americans that we just might not

46
00:03:52,379 --> 00:03:57,239
make it. Not that the end is near or that doom is around the corner, but that a distinctly

47
00:03:57,239 --> 00:04:04,349
American feeling of inevitability of greatness, culturally, economically, politically, is

48
00:04:04,349 --> 00:04:10,060
gone--that we have become Britain or Rome or Greece.

49
00:04:10,060 --> 00:04:16,579
A generation ago, Ronald Reagan rallied the nation to deny a similar charge: Jimmy Carter's

50
00:04:16,579 --> 00:04:22,000
fear that we had fallen into a state of malaise. And I confess. I was one of those so rallied

51
00:04:22,000 --> 00:04:28,450
and I still believe Reagan was right today. But the feeling I'm talking about today is

52
00:04:28,450 --> 00:04:28,940
different.

53
00:04:28,940 --> 00:04:35,950
Not that we, as a people, have lost anything of our potential, but that we, as a Republic,

54
00:04:35,950 --> 00:04:44,510
have. That our capacity for governing, the one thing that we were once most proud of,

55
00:04:44,510 --> 00:04:49,510
this our Republic, is the one thing that we have all learned to ignore. Government is

56
00:04:49,510 --> 00:04:52,330
an embarrassment.

57
00:04:52,330 --> 00:04:57,610
And it has lost the capacity to make the most essential decisions and slowly it dawns upon

58
00:04:57,610 --> 00:05:03,960
us that a ship that cannot be steered is a ship that will sink. This is not a Democratic

59
00:05:03,960 --> 00:05:10,090
or Republican point alone. This is a genuinely multi-partisan frustration.

60
00:05:10,090 --> 00:05:14,120
The sense that the government doesn't work is signaled by many different policy areas

61
00:05:14,120 --> 00:05:20,500
on the left and the right, which systematically get blocked. And when confronted with this

62
00:05:20,500 --> 00:05:27,530
systematic block, my suggestion is we need to exercise this Thoreauvian insight. So,

63
00:05:27,530 --> 00:05:31,970
my objective this afternoon is to do a little bit of brainwashing.

64
00:05:31,970 --> 00:05:32,930
[laughter]

65
00:05:32,930 --> 00:05:38,440
To get you to the place that you see the roots that I want you to see. I'm gonna do that

66
00:05:38,440 --> 00:05:42,590
with three some examples. One of them is familiar. Indeed, I told a similar story here the last

67
00:05:42,590 --> 00:05:46,140
time I was here--the story around copyright.

68
00:05:46,140 --> 00:05:52,280
On October 27th, 1998, I became a copyright activist the day President Clinton signed

69
00:05:52,280 --> 00:05:59,100
into law a statute in honor of this great American, the Sonny Bono Copyright Term Extension

70
00:05:59,100 --> 00:06:05,310
Act--a statute which extended the term of existing copyrights by 20 years.

71
00:06:05,310 --> 00:06:09,920
Now, the question Congress was supposed to be asking when it passed that statute was,

72
00:06:09,920 --> 00:06:16,520
"Would it advance the public good to extend the term of an existing copyright by 20 years?"

73
00:06:16,520 --> 00:06:21,110
Copyrights are designed to create incentives, but we know about this universe. Put aside

74
00:06:21,110 --> 00:06:22,110
Star Trek for a moment.

75
00:06:22,110 --> 00:06:28,260
What we know about this universe is that its incentives are prospective. So, not even the

76
00:06:28,260 --> 00:06:33,570
United States Congress can get George Gershwin to produce anything more.

77
00:06:33,570 --> 00:06:34,440
[laughter]

78
00:06:34,440 --> 00:06:38,030
So when you ask the question, "Does it make sense to advance the public good to extend

79
00:06:38,030 --> 00:06:41,690
the term of existing copyright?" it's a pretty easy answer. Indeed, when we challenged this

80
00:06:41,690 --> 00:06:46,650
statute in the Supreme Court and a bunch of economists wanted to sign a brief saying it

81
00:06:46,650 --> 00:06:49,520
did not advance the public good, this liberal, left-wing--.

82
00:06:49,520 --> 00:06:57,090
Oh, I'm sorry. Wait. This is Milton Friedman--right-wing, Nobel Prize winning economist, agreed to sign

83
00:06:57,090 --> 00:07:01,930
the brief but only if the word "no brainer" was in the brief somewhere.

84
00:07:01,930 --> 00:07:03,180
[laughter]

85
00:07:03,180 --> 00:07:08,490
So obvious was it that you could not extend the public good by extending the term of existing

86
00:07:08,490 --> 00:07:15,160
copyrights. But apparently there were no brains in this place when Congress unanimously extended

87
00:07:15,160 --> 00:07:17,370
the term of these existing copyrights.

88
00:07:17,370 --> 00:07:22,930
What there was, was more than six million dollars in contributions from Disney and related

89
00:07:22,930 --> 00:07:28,030
corporations seeking the extension of their valuable copyrights--the public be damned.

90
00:07:28,030 --> 00:07:32,280
Here's another example. Wall Street Journal, at the end of last year, was puzzled about

91
00:07:32,280 --> 00:07:37,430
the explosion of temporary tax provisions in our tax code.

92
00:07:37,430 --> 00:07:41,440
These temporary tax provisions expire after a limited period of time. And that leads to

93
00:07:41,440 --> 00:07:48,110
this extender mania, as lobbyists and Congress race around to try to extend the particular

94
00:07:48,110 --> 00:07:53,720
tax provision for another period of time. And the Journal wondered what explains the

95
00:07:53,720 --> 00:07:57,730
explosion and change in the number of these extensions.

96
00:07:57,730 --> 00:08:04,780
Well, it turns out the first of these temporary provisions was given to us by Reagan in 1981.

97
00:08:04,780 --> 00:08:09,290
Congress passed the Research and Development Tax Credit. But because the Democrats were

98
00:08:09,290 --> 00:08:13,480
skeptical about whether it would work, they made the tax credit temporary.

99
00:08:13,480 --> 00:08:16,980
They said they would test it after a number of years. And if it turned out it worked,

100
00:08:16,980 --> 00:08:20,990
they would make it permanent. If it didn't work, they would repeal it. So, after a couple

101
00:08:20,990 --> 00:08:24,640
years, the economists asked the question, "Did it work?" The answer is yes. Left and

102
00:08:24,640 --> 00:08:28,940
right economists all agreed that it did work. It was a great tax idea.

103
00:08:28,940 --> 00:08:32,719
It spurred a kind of investment that otherwise would not have been spurred. And so, it made

104
00:08:32,719 --> 00:08:38,610
sense absolutely to make this part of the tax code. Here's the puzzle. It is still temporary

105
00:08:38,610 --> 00:08:40,669
to this day. Why?

106
00:08:40,669 --> 00:08:45,660
Well, as Rebecca Kysar describes in this piece in the Georgia Law Review, "The principle

107
00:08:45,660 --> 00:08:51,240
recipients of the research credit are large US manufacturing corporations. These business

108
00:08:51,240 --> 00:08:56,320
entities are more than willing to invest in lobbying activities and campaign donations

109
00:08:56,320 --> 00:09:00,960
to ensure the continuance of this large tax savings."

110
00:09:00,960 --> 00:09:04,880
The Institute for Policy Innovation put it a little bit more sharply. "This cycle has

111
00:09:04,880 --> 00:09:09,560
repeated for years. Congress allows the credit to lapse until another short extension is

112
00:09:09,560 --> 00:09:14,060
given. Proceeded, of course, by a series of fundraisers and speeches about the importance

113
00:09:14,060 --> 00:09:16,020
of nurturing innovation.

114
00:09:16,020 --> 00:09:21,600
Congress essentially uses the cycle to raise money for re-election, promising industry

115
00:09:21,600 --> 00:09:28,750
more predictability the next time around." Now this dynamic is central to how Washington

116
00:09:28,750 --> 00:09:36,820
works. We architect tax policy in part, at least, not just to raise money for our treasury,

117
00:09:36,820 --> 00:09:42,460
but to make it easier to raise money for our Congressmen's campaigns.

118
00:09:42,460 --> 00:09:47,660
And not just tax policy. When Al Gore was Vice President, he had an idea to simplify

119
00:09:47,660 --> 00:09:53,730
the regulation governing infrastructure that internet would come across. Right now, we

120
00:09:53,730 --> 00:09:59,140
have two titles in the Communications Act--Title Two and Title Six. Title Two governs telephones.

121
00:09:59,140 --> 00:10:03,750
Title Six governs cable. Those are two radically different regulatory structures. Gore's idea

122
00:10:03,750 --> 00:10:08,940
was to put them together in a Title Seven and fundamentally deregulate them--much less

123
00:10:08,940 --> 00:10:11,930
than even network neutrality regulation would require.

124
00:10:11,930 --> 00:10:16,110
His team took the idea to Capitol Hill and the chief policy person described--the reaction,

125
00:10:16,110 --> 00:10:22,860
he said the reaction was quote, "Hell no. If we deregulate these guys, how are we going

126
00:10:22,860 --> 00:10:29,030
to raise money from them?" And you get this kind of sinking, terrifying feeling here,

127
00:10:29,030 --> 00:10:29,440
right?

128
00:10:29,440 --> 00:10:35,570
Recognizing that we tax in part to make it easy to raise campaign funds. We regulate,

129
00:10:35,570 --> 00:10:41,880
in part, to make it easier to raise campaign funds. Campaign funds driving critical areas

130
00:10:41,880 --> 00:10:48,070
of fiscal policy unrelated to the merits of the underlying fiscal policy. Here's the third

131
00:10:48,070 --> 00:10:48,200
example.

132
00:10:48,200 --> 00:10:52,330
Think about Wall Street. We've of course seen this collapse on Wall Street, which triggered

133
00:10:52,330 --> 00:10:57,080
a collapse in the economy. What explains that collapse? Well, as Simon Johnson and James

134
00:10:57,080 --> 00:11:03,240
Kwak describe in their book, "13 Bankers," part of the explanation is this perverse mix

135
00:11:03,240 --> 00:11:06,430
of too little government and too much government.

136
00:11:06,430 --> 00:11:13,650
Too little government in the form of deregulation. In the 1990s, we saw an explosion of financial

137
00:11:13,650 --> 00:11:19,470
innovations, derivatives. But these innovations were essentially invisible to the market because

138
00:11:19,470 --> 00:11:25,980
a series of regulatory changes in the 1990s made derivatives, unlike other financial assets,

139
00:11:25,980 --> 00:11:30,670
not subject to the standard requirements that have existed since the new deal that they

140
00:11:30,670 --> 00:11:38,070
be traded on public exchanges, transparently with anti-fraud obligations tied to every

141
00:11:38,070 --> 00:11:39,260
transaction.

142
00:11:39,260 --> 00:11:46,140
So, my colleague, Frank Partnoy, calculated that in 1980, 98 percent of assets traded

143
00:11:46,140 --> 00:11:55,420
in our economy were traded under these standard new deal, trade-based rules. But by 2008,

144
00:11:55,420 --> 00:12:03,340
90 percent of the assets traded in our economy were exempted from these exchange-based rules,

145
00:12:03,340 --> 00:12:07,310
could be traded without transparency, could be traded without anybody knowing what the

146
00:12:07,310 --> 00:12:08,630
prices would be for.

147
00:12:08,630 --> 00:12:12,710
It could be traded without any anti-fraud requirements being tied to them, producing

148
00:12:12,710 --> 00:12:18,529
this shadow banking market, which encouraged--because of the uncertainty it spewed everywhere--the

149
00:12:18,529 --> 00:12:23,730
bubble which eventually burst and brought the economy down. But that alone, Kwak and

150
00:12:23,730 --> 00:12:28,430
Johnson say, wasn't enough. In addition, we had too much government.

151
00:12:28,430 --> 00:12:34,170
Throughout the 1990s, there was a beacon, a constant signal from the government that

152
00:12:34,170 --> 00:12:38,920
there was, in effect, a government guarantee that when this bubble burst there would be

153
00:12:38,920 --> 00:12:45,220
a bailout on the other side producing what is the dumbest form of socialism ever invented

154
00:12:45,220 --> 00:12:49,940
by man--socialized risk and privatized benefit.

155
00:12:49,940 --> 00:12:56,670
We suffer the downside. They get the upside. Now I know you guys are not lawyers. This

156
00:12:56,670 --> 00:13:01,600
is a technical legal term, but this is an insanely stupid way--

157
00:13:01,600 --> 00:13:02,910
[laughter]

158
00:13:02,910 --> 00:13:08,220
to set up a financial system. And all that stupidity is just before 2008. Even worse

159
00:13:08,220 --> 00:13:15,310
is after 2008, where we add insult to injury in the way that Congress increasingly functions.

160
00:13:15,310 --> 00:13:21,100
Because after 2008, after the worst crisis since the Depression, after all who are not

161
00:13:21,100 --> 00:13:26,170
involved in that crisis had concluded that one of the principle causes to that crisis

162
00:13:26,170 --> 00:13:31,740
was the architecture of deregulation that Wall Street had purchased until 2008, after

163
00:13:31,740 --> 00:13:37,270
the dean of deregulation, the Ayn Rand-ian, Alan Greenspan, Head of the Fed, confessed

164
00:13:37,270 --> 00:13:41,710
in testimony to Congress that he was quote "mistaken" about whether the banks would act

165
00:13:41,710 --> 00:13:45,120
in the public interest as opposed to their private interest.

166
00:13:45,120 --> 00:13:51,620
After all of that, Wall Street was still powerful enough to blackmail the Democrats and Republicans

167
00:13:51,620 --> 00:13:59,410
both to give them an essential "get out of jail free" card and to keep the core flaw

168
00:13:59,410 --> 00:14:02,630
of our architecture of regulation the same.

169
00:14:02,630 --> 00:14:09,550
If the banks were too big to fail before 2008, the banks are only too bigger to fail after

170
00:14:09,550 --> 00:14:15,839
2008, leading many Independents of Wall Street to include that our risk of a collapse is

171
00:14:15,839 --> 00:14:21,850
greater today than it was before the collapse in 2008. Again, why? What would explain this

172
00:14:21,850 --> 00:14:23,770
stupidity in the architecture of regulation?

173
00:14:23,770 --> 00:14:27,620
Well, lots of possible reasons, but here's the one thing we know. The fastest growing

174
00:14:27,620 --> 00:14:35,860
sector in campaign contributions since 1991, and the largest chunk of contributions in

175
00:14:35,860 --> 00:14:41,529
the 2010 election, come from the finance and insurance industries. OK. Here's one final

176
00:14:41,529 --> 00:14:41,980
example.

177
00:14:41,980 --> 00:14:45,980
I'm sure many of you, when you saw these images, had a question in the back of your head. How

178
00:14:45,980 --> 00:14:52,800
was it that it's possible to launch such an experimental drilling platform, as the Deepwater

179
00:14:52,800 --> 00:14:56,850
Horizon, without extensive environmental impact and risk studies?

180
00:14:56,850 --> 00:15:04,089
All right. In my part of the country, we've just spent nine years and ten thousand pages

181
00:15:04,089 --> 00:15:09,870
of environmental impact studies to permit the construction of this green energy technology.

182
00:15:09,870 --> 00:15:15,279
So, exactly how much was required before they were able to build the experimental deep water

183
00:15:15,279 --> 00:15:17,910
drilling platform, which was the Deepwater Horizon?

184
00:15:17,910 --> 00:15:26,050
The answer is 17 pages before they were exempted from any further need for review, leading

185
00:15:26,050 --> 00:15:28,690
Congress to be shocked of course.

186
00:15:28,690 --> 00:15:35,170
[plays video clip] >>Male #1: I am shocked--shocked--to find

187
00:15:35,170 --> 00:15:35,250
that gambling is going on in here.

188
00:15:35,250 --> 00:15:35,250
>>Male #2: Your winnings, sir.

189
00:15:35,250 --> 00:15:35,250
>>Male #1: Thank you very much. Everybody out in front.

190
00:15:35,250 --> 00:15:35,250
[laughter]

191
00:15:35,250 --> 00:15:35,250
[end video clip]

192
00:15:35,250 --> 00:15:39,190
>>Lawrence Lessig: And of course, it was Congress that had required these fast track approval

193
00:15:39,190 --> 00:15:44,399
processes, leading again to the question, "What would ever convince them that fast track

194
00:15:44,399 --> 00:15:49,200
approval on experimental drilling wells made sense?" Lots of possible answers to that question.

195
00:15:49,200 --> 00:15:53,490
The one thing we know is endless campaign cash driving to this conclusion. Now, here's

196
00:15:53,490 --> 00:16:02,930
the point. No respectable Liberal or Libertarian or Conservative could defend these cases.

197
00:16:02,930 --> 00:16:08,810
Each of them is an abomination from each of those three political philosophy perspectives.

198
00:16:08,810 --> 00:16:14,060
So, how is it they become policy in the United States? Now, it turns out political sciences

199
00:16:14,060 --> 00:16:19,200
are uncertain. They say it's a little bit complex. But here's the thing. You believe

200
00:16:19,200 --> 00:16:25,279
you know. I just had to point to point to the money. And you believe you now know the

201
00:16:25,279 --> 00:16:28,950
root cause to this stupidity.

202
00:16:28,950 --> 00:16:33,740
And that's the core of my claim. Number one, it is because of cases like this, and I could

203
00:16:33,740 --> 00:16:39,390
go on for hours, I promise--millions of cases like this--that Americans believe money buys

204
00:16:39,390 --> 00:16:44,440
results in Congress. Seventy-five percent of Americans in a poll that we conducted for

205
00:16:44,440 --> 00:16:47,740
my book conclude money buys results in Congress.

206
00:16:47,740 --> 00:16:50,180
You think, "What were the 25 percent thinking?" I don't know.

207
00:16:50,180 --> 00:16:50,480
[laughter]

208
00:16:50,480 --> 00:16:56,570
But a little bit more Democrats than Republicans. But I guarantee you when the Republicans were

209
00:16:56,570 --> 00:17:01,480
not in control, it was just as many Republicans as Democrats. So, whether it's two-thirds

210
00:17:01,480 --> 00:17:06,069
or three-fourths, here's the thing we Americans all agree about.

211
00:17:06,069 --> 00:17:12,800
Money buys results in Congress. Leading to number two. A belief in money buying results

212
00:17:12,800 --> 00:17:19,110
erodes trust in the institution. So, last year Gallup concluded that eleven percent

213
00:17:19,110 --> 00:17:25,520
of Americans have confidence in Congress. Gallup's number this year is a little more

214
00:17:25,520 --> 00:17:28,079
optimistic. They say 12 percent.

215
00:17:28,079 --> 00:17:28,600
[laughter]

216
00:17:28,600 --> 00:17:33,590
But I just read today in the New York Times--New York Times CBS poll says that nine percent

217
00:17:33,590 --> 00:17:39,490
of Americans have confidence in Congress. To keep this in some context, right, it is

218
00:17:39,490 --> 00:17:44,670
certainly the case that there were more people who believed in the British crown at the time

219
00:17:44,670 --> 00:17:48,530
of the Revolution than believe in our Congress today.

220
00:17:48,530 --> 00:17:49,030
[laughter]

221
00:17:49,030 --> 00:17:54,660
And at what point does an institution have to declare political bankruptcy? At what point

222
00:17:54,660 --> 00:17:59,300
has it just lost the credibility with the people? What, nine percent isn't enough? Five

223
00:17:59,300 --> 00:18:05,520
percent? What is the number when we have to say there is no more confidence in this government?

224
00:18:05,520 --> 00:18:10,270
And that leads to number three. Low trust erodes participation in the system. Rock the

225
00:18:10,270 --> 00:18:14,230
Vote, the organization that registered and turned out to vote the largest number of young

226
00:18:14,230 --> 00:18:19,720
people who ever voted in the history of this nation, and arguably delivered the election

227
00:18:19,720 --> 00:18:24,880
to Barack Obama, in 2010, found a large number of their voters were not gonna turn out and

228
00:18:24,880 --> 00:18:25,210
vote.

229
00:18:25,210 --> 00:18:29,980
So, they polled them. Why? Number one answer to that poll by far--two to one over the second

230
00:18:29,980 --> 00:18:34,860
highest--was "no matter who wins, corporate interest will still have too much power and

231
00:18:34,860 --> 00:18:40,160
prevent real change." And it's not just kids who think this. The vast majority of people,

232
00:18:40,160 --> 00:18:45,460
who could have voted, didn't vote and didn't vote in part because of this belief precisely.

233
00:18:45,460 --> 00:18:50,480
Now here, I'm gonna shift into professor mode. Here's my blackboard. It wasn't supposed to

234
00:18:50,480 --> 00:18:57,100
be this way. That wasn't the intent. Framers of our Constitution gave us, as Conservatives

235
00:18:57,100 --> 00:19:04,330
like to remind us, a Republic. But what they meant by a Republic was a quote "representative

236
00:19:04,330 --> 00:19:05,809
democracy."

237
00:19:05,809 --> 00:19:10,260
And what they meant by a representative democracy as Federalist 52 puts it was, "a government

238
00:19:10,260 --> 00:19:17,530
that would have a branch quote 'dependent upon the people alone.'" OK? So, here's the

239
00:19:17,530 --> 00:19:21,510
model of government. We have the people. We have the government. I do my own slides, so

240
00:19:21,510 --> 00:19:23,570
it's cool the way that bounces, right?

241
00:19:23,570 --> 00:19:23,900
[laughter]

242
00:19:23,900 --> 00:19:29,240
The people, the government, marionette relationship between the two. Here's the problem. Congress

243
00:19:29,240 --> 00:19:34,580
has evolved a different dependence. It's not just the people and the government. Increasingly,

244
00:19:34,580 --> 00:19:37,670
it's the funders and the people and the government.

245
00:19:37,670 --> 00:19:43,900
In a world where members spend between 30 and 70 percent of their time raising money

246
00:19:43,900 --> 00:19:49,370
to get back to Congress, or to get their Party back into power--they can't help, like each

247
00:19:49,370 --> 00:19:56,460
of you couldn't help--developing a sixth sense, a constant awareness about how what they do

248
00:19:56,460 --> 00:19:59,380
might affect their ability to raise money.

249
00:19:59,380 --> 00:20:04,540
In the words of the "X-Files," they become shape-shifters, constantly adjusting their

250
00:20:04,540 --> 00:20:09,710
positions. Not on issues one to ten, but issue eleven to five hundred in light of what they

251
00:20:09,710 --> 00:20:14,670
know will raise money. Leslie Byrne describes it when she came to Congress. She's a Democrat

252
00:20:14,670 --> 00:20:15,309
from Virginia.

253
00:20:15,309 --> 00:20:21,010
She was told by a colleague quote, "Always lean to the green." And then to clarify, she

254
00:20:21,010 --> 00:20:23,380
went on, "he was not an environmentalist."

255
00:20:23,380 --> 00:20:24,950
[laughter]

256
00:20:24,950 --> 00:20:35,030
Now, the point is this a dependence, too. But it's a different and conflicting dependence

257
00:20:35,030 --> 00:20:44,230
from a dependence upon the people alone because--surprise, surprise--the funders are not the people.

258
00:20:44,230 --> 00:20:50,240
Indeed, candidates pay attention in campaigns most to those who max out in the campaign.

259
00:20:50,240 --> 00:20:55,150
So, what percentage of Americans maxed out in 2010 in congressional elections in either

260
00:20:55,150 --> 00:21:02,480
of the two cycles? The answer is point zero five percent of Americans. So, the Occupy

261
00:21:02,480 --> 00:21:06,730
Wall Street people are so proud of their slogan, "We are the 99 percent." Bad marketing. They

262
00:21:06,730 --> 00:21:09,640
are the 99 point nine five percent,--

263
00:21:09,640 --> 00:21:10,460
[laughter]

264
00:21:10,460 --> 00:21:15,799
who don't get listened to because they are not in the point zero five percent of people

265
00:21:15,799 --> 00:21:21,299
who are directly tied into the influence that is our government. Now, this is--Supreme Court

266
00:21:21,299 --> 00:21:24,100
doesn't recognize this yet, but you should.

267
00:21:24,100 --> 00:21:31,299
This is corruption. It's not the corruption of brown paper bags secreting cash among members

268
00:21:31,299 --> 00:21:36,640
of Congress. Up through the middle of the 20th Century, members of Congress had safes

269
00:21:36,640 --> 00:21:41,540
in their office for cash. You think to yourselves, "I didn't know that they paid Congressmen

270
00:21:41,540 --> 00:21:43,190
in cash." They didn't.

271
00:21:43,190 --> 00:21:43,559
[laughter]

272
00:21:43,559 --> 00:21:47,340
They just discovered that there would be cash on their desk and they needed a place to keep

273
00:21:47,340 --> 00:21:52,390
it. [laughter] So, that was the way things were. But that's not the problem today. Our

274
00:21:52,390 --> 00:21:56,830
Congress, in that sense, is the cleanest Congress in the history of Congress. It's not filled

275
00:21:56,830 --> 00:21:58,220
with Rod Blagojeviches.

276
00:21:58,220 --> 00:22:02,580
It's not filled with people who are violating any law. None of the corruption I'm talking

277
00:22:02,580 --> 00:22:10,540
about is illegal. It's all legal, in plain sight. But it is corruption because it's relative

278
00:22:10,540 --> 00:22:16,590
to the baseline the framers gave us of the dependence upon the people alone. We have

279
00:22:16,590 --> 00:22:19,070
corrupted that dependence.

280
00:22:19,070 --> 00:22:23,860
It is a dependence corruption because the wrong dependence has been allowed to step

281
00:22:23,860 --> 00:22:29,670
into the middle of this system. So then, what does the corruption do? How does it affect

282
00:22:29,670 --> 00:22:35,590
the results? Well, you can think about its effect in substance. But it turns out, interestingly,

283
00:22:35,590 --> 00:22:41,470
bizarrely, but interestingly, this controversy about whether it affects the results.

284
00:22:41,470 --> 00:22:47,210
There's some people who believe it doesn't affect the results. Indeed, the former Chairman

285
00:22:47,210 --> 00:22:54,700
of the Federal Election Commission, Bradley Smith--I quote in his book, said this. "The

286
00:22:54,700 --> 00:22:59,700
evidence is pretty overwhelming that money does not play much of a role in what goes

287
00:22:59,700 --> 00:23:04,140
on in terms of legislative voting patterns and legislative behavior.

288
00:23:04,140 --> 00:23:09,590
The consensus about that among people who have studied it, is roughly the same as the

289
00:23:09,590 --> 00:23:13,540
consensus among scientists that global warming is taking place."

290
00:23:13,540 --> 00:23:14,410
[laughter]

291
00:23:14,410 --> 00:23:21,000
Now, to be clear, Bradley Smith is not a global warming denier. He is a corruption denier.

292
00:23:21,000 --> 00:23:24,020
And he said this--we were on in interview on the radio. I just couldn't believe it.

293
00:23:24,020 --> 00:23:27,410
I had to tweet it. But then I got in a lot of trouble for this hash tag.

294
00:23:27,410 --> 00:23:27,640
[laughter]

295
00:23:27,640 --> 00:23:30,190
But of course, that hash tag just means Bradley Smith--

296
00:23:30,190 --> 00:23:30,570
[laughter]

297
00:23:30,570 --> 00:23:37,490
just talking about--. OK. So, do we have evidence that the results are a function of the money?

298
00:23:37,490 --> 00:23:41,360
Well, there's lots of recent studies that are beginning to make this absolutely compelling.

299
00:23:41,360 --> 00:23:45,460
One of my favorites is this piece by Clayton Peoples that looks at seven thousand votes

300
00:23:45,460 --> 00:23:47,559
over a period of 1991 to 2006.

301
00:23:47,559 --> 00:23:52,740
It concludes, can show a statistically significant contributor influence in at least seven of

302
00:23:52,740 --> 00:23:57,730
the eight Houses. The one House you couldn't show it was the House that passed the McCain-Feingold

303
00:23:57,730 --> 00:24:03,020
Campaign Reform Act. So they were thinking good in that one term, but not any other period.

304
00:24:03,020 --> 00:24:07,679
But I think more interesting is this piece by Martin Gilens at Princeton. Gilens took

305
00:24:07,679 --> 00:24:13,580
about 17 hundred public opinion surveys about attitudes about how policy should change.

306
00:24:13,580 --> 00:24:19,700
And he narrowed that down to about 887, where the attitudes of the top ten percent were

307
00:24:19,700 --> 00:24:22,400
different from the attitudes of the bottom 90 percent.

308
00:24:22,400 --> 00:24:27,929
And he asked the question, "When the top ten percent think we should go left, and the bottom

309
00:24:27,929 --> 00:24:31,330
90 percent think we should go right"-- I don't mean that left and right politically. I just

310
00:24:31,330 --> 00:24:34,919
mean go one direction and the other wanna go the other direction. "--which way do we

311
00:24:34,919 --> 00:24:35,710
go?"

312
00:24:35,710 --> 00:24:41,429
And what he found was "when Americans with different income levels differ in their policy

313
00:24:41,429 --> 00:24:47,130
preferences, actual policy outcomes strongly reflect the preferences of the most affluent,

314
00:24:47,130 --> 00:24:53,480
but bare virtually no relationship to the preferences of the poor or middle income Americans."

315
00:24:53,480 --> 00:24:59,929
There is a vast discrepancy between what our Congress does if it in fact were following

316
00:24:59,929 --> 00:25:05,320
the people alone, and what our Congress does given that it's following the thing I'm taking

317
00:25:05,320 --> 00:25:09,700
for as the proxy for the funders. OK. That's substance.

318
00:25:09,700 --> 00:25:14,140
But here, you can also just more easily identify agenda because remember, Brad Smith also said

319
00:25:14,140 --> 00:25:19,010
it doesn't affect legislative behavior. And here, there is no basis for suggesting it

320
00:25:19,010 --> 00:25:22,610
doesn't affect legislative behavior. Here's just one example. If I asked you, "What was

321
00:25:22,610 --> 00:25:28,679
the number one issue Congress spent its time on in the first four months of this year?"

322
00:25:28,679 --> 00:25:33,700
It's felt like many years this year, but just the first four months. We're in the middle

323
00:25:33,700 --> 00:25:39,570
of two wars, huge unemployment problems, huge budget deficit problems. Still have a bunch

324
00:25:39,570 --> 00:25:42,770
of questions around health care and still have a bunch of questions around global warming

325
00:25:42,770 --> 00:25:44,440
that have not even begun to be addressed.

326
00:25:44,440 --> 00:25:49,090
What was the issue they spent most of their time dealing with? The answer is the bank

327
00:25:49,090 --> 00:25:54,330
swipe fee controversy. Now, what's the bank swipe fee controversy? Well, the bank swipe

328
00:25:54,330 --> 00:25:58,470
fee controversy is whether banks, when you used your debit card, get to charge more,

329
00:25:58,470 --> 00:26:02,840
or retailers when you use your debit card get to be charged less for the use of debit

330
00:26:02,840 --> 00:26:03,750
cards.

331
00:26:03,750 --> 00:26:08,610
That is the critical national issue that dominated the Congressional agenda for the first four

332
00:26:08,610 --> 00:26:12,440
months. And you think, "Well, why would that ever be? Why would swipe fees be the center

333
00:26:12,440 --> 00:26:13,320
of what they care about?"

334
00:26:13,320 --> 00:26:18,049
How many members of Congress got elected going down there saying, "The thing I'm going for

335
00:26:18,049 --> 00:26:22,660
is to deal with that swipe fee controversy." Right? Well, the answer is one Senator described

336
00:26:22,660 --> 00:26:26,510
it like this. "The fights down here can be put into two or three categories: The big

337
00:26:26,510 --> 00:26:31,340
greedy bastards against the big greedy bastards; the big greedy bastards against the little

338
00:26:31,340 --> 00:26:36,059
greedy bastards; and some cases even the other little greedy bastards against the other little

339
00:26:36,059 --> 00:26:37,710
greedy bastards."

340
00:26:37,710 --> 00:26:38,330
[laughter]

341
00:26:38,330 --> 00:26:42,000
So we have this kind of controversy. And here's the money line, so to speak. I don't even

342
00:26:42,000 --> 00:26:47,520
think the authors, Zach Carter and Ryan Grimm, saw the significance of this, but this is

343
00:26:47,520 --> 00:26:49,040
the real money line in the piece.

344
00:26:49,040 --> 00:26:54,000
They say, "The clock never ticks down to zero in Washington: one year's law is the next

345
00:26:54,000 --> 00:26:59,860
year's repeal target. Politicians, showered with cash from card companies and giant retailers

346
00:26:59,860 --> 00:27:06,100
alike, have been moving back and forth between camps, paid handsomely for their shifting

347
00:27:06,100 --> 00:27:06,770
allegiances."

348
00:27:06,770 --> 00:27:13,150
So, it's not just tax policy that gets architected to raise money for members of Congress. It's

349
00:27:13,150 --> 00:27:17,760
not just regulation that gets architected to make it easy to raise money for members

350
00:27:17,760 --> 00:27:22,799
of Congress. It's the very agenda of what Congress addresses that gets set in a way

351
00:27:22,799 --> 00:27:25,770
to make it easier for members to raise money.

352
00:27:25,770 --> 00:27:30,250
So why don't we address unemployment? Turns out unemployment doesn't pay so well [laughter]

353
00:27:30,250 --> 00:27:35,840
for Congressmen raising money for their campaigns. Now, my view is we critically need a way to

354
00:27:35,840 --> 00:27:41,220
change this. And we change this by fixing the dependence. If the problem here is that

355
00:27:41,220 --> 00:27:48,870
the funders are not the people, a solution is to make the funders the people, to give

356
00:27:48,870 --> 00:27:49,330
them a way--.

357
00:27:49,330 --> 00:27:54,660
I know that looks like one word. I mean two words, here. I don't mean give Congress away.

358
00:27:54,660 --> 00:27:59,410
I know a lot of people would like to do that. I mean, give Congress a way to fund their

359
00:27:59,410 --> 00:28:05,740
campaigns without Faust, without selling their souls, and thereby without alienating America.

360
00:28:05,740 --> 00:28:10,390
And the one way, and I increasing think the only way to do this, is to commit to a system

361
00:28:10,390 --> 00:28:15,890
of publicly funding public elections. Now, a particular brand of public funding is what

362
00:28:15,890 --> 00:28:21,809
I want to pedal here. I want a public funding that changes from large-dollar funded campaigns

363
00:28:21,809 --> 00:28:23,610
to small-dollar funded campaigns.

364
00:28:23,610 --> 00:28:28,700
And there are lots of examples of this around the country. Three states in particular, Arizona,

365
00:28:28,700 --> 00:28:34,419
Maine, and Connecticut, have systems where candidates opt into a regime where they take

366
00:28:34,419 --> 00:28:40,150
small dollar contributions only and the regime effectively amplifies those contributions,

367
00:28:40,150 --> 00:28:45,220
so that they can successfully wage a campaign having never taken a large dollar contribution

368
00:28:45,220 --> 00:28:45,940
from anybody.

369
00:28:45,940 --> 00:28:50,289
There are many ways to do that. I describe one in my book that's a little different from

370
00:28:50,289 --> 00:28:55,600
what Maine and Connecticut have done. And I can talk about that in questions, but the

371
00:28:55,600 --> 00:29:00,169
point I want you to recognize, the critical point about this way of funding elections,

372
00:29:00,169 --> 00:29:05,700
is if we had an election where the majority of Congress--the vast majority of Congress--took

373
00:29:05,700 --> 00:29:14,110
small dollar contributions only, then we all could believe, as we all want to believe,

374
00:29:14,110 --> 00:29:18,070
[laughter] that when Congress did something stupid it was either because there were too

375
00:29:18,070 --> 00:29:22,160
many Democrats or because there were too many Republicans, or because they just didn't understand

376
00:29:22,160 --> 00:29:23,549
what they were doing.

377
00:29:23,549 --> 00:29:30,669
But not because of the money. The essential element of mistrust and cynicism in the system

378
00:29:30,669 --> 00:29:35,929
would've been removed by an alternative funding system that gave us no reason to doubt the

379
00:29:35,929 --> 00:29:39,539
integrity or credibility of what that system was doing.

380
00:29:39,539 --> 00:29:47,179
Now, this is a way, I believe, to create a reassertion of the dominance of the people

381
00:29:47,179 --> 00:29:51,570
and the dependence the framers intended and to restore the institution of Congress to

382
00:29:51,570 --> 00:29:55,890
at least be a little bit more popular than King George at the founding.

383
00:29:55,890 --> 00:29:56,090
[laughter]

384
00:29:56,090 --> 00:30:00,419
OK. Now that's the argument. Here's the hard question. How do you get there? I don't think

385
00:30:00,419 --> 00:30:05,549
it's hard to describe the problem. We all believe we believed in the problem before

386
00:30:05,549 --> 00:30:06,850
I even said anything about it.

387
00:30:06,850 --> 00:30:10,150
And it's not even hard, I think, to describe a solution. I'm happy to tell you more about

388
00:30:10,150 --> 00:30:16,650
mine, but I think the solution is pretty clear. What is hard--maybe what's impossibly hard--is

389
00:30:16,650 --> 00:30:23,160
to imagine the political movement that brings about the solution. And the reason for that

390
00:30:23,160 --> 00:30:28,330
is an insight given to me by Congressman Jim Cooper, Democrat from Tennessee, who has been

391
00:30:28,330 --> 00:30:30,980
in Congress for as long all but about 20 other members of Congress.

392
00:30:30,980 --> 00:30:35,360
And Cooper said this. He told me "the problem with Capitol Hill is it has become a quote

393
00:30:35,360 --> 00:30:43,289
'Farm league for K Street.'" K Street, the home of lobbyists. A farm league for K Street,

394
00:30:43,289 --> 00:30:47,289
meaning members and staffers and bureaucrats have this increasingly common business model

395
00:30:47,289 --> 00:30:48,400
in the back of their head.

396
00:30:48,400 --> 00:30:55,570
The business model is focused on their life after government, their life as lobbyists.

397
00:30:55,570 --> 00:31:00,710
Public Citizen calculated between 1998 and 2004, 50 percent of Senators left to become

398
00:31:00,710 --> 00:31:04,830
lobbyists. Forty-two percent of the members of the House. Those numbers have only gone

399
00:31:04,830 --> 00:31:06,250
up.

400
00:31:06,250 --> 00:31:11,980
And so, in a world where everyone depends upon the existing system surviving, because

401
00:31:11,980 --> 00:31:18,850
that's the only way they have a lucrative after-government future, how to we begin to

402
00:31:18,850 --> 00:31:25,049
imagine that institution and those people--the lobbyists, the members of Congress, the staffers,

403
00:31:25,049 --> 00:31:30,299
the bureaucrats--ever organizing to change that deeply corrupt system?

404
00:31:30,299 --> 00:31:35,730
Well, in my book, I consider four ideas. One of them is the ordinary idea--the idea of

405
00:31:35,730 --> 00:31:40,299
passing a statute. That idea is impossible. I looked it up on Google. It is impossible.

406
00:31:40,299 --> 00:31:40,890
[laughter]

407
00:31:40,890 --> 00:31:46,610
It's technically impossible. It's impossible because there is no way they will ever radically

408
00:31:46,610 --> 00:31:52,679
change the system that both got them there and will carry them out in very well-paid

409
00:31:52,679 --> 00:31:58,990
lobbyist’s jobs. So that leads me to three insane solutions that are only improbable,

410
00:31:58,990 --> 00:32:00,500
not quite impossible.

411
00:32:00,500 --> 00:32:03,909
And the third of these, the one that I ultimately think will be the most important, is this

412
00:32:03,909 --> 00:32:10,720
suggestion of a convention. So, the framers of our Constitution in Article Five created

413
00:32:10,720 --> 00:32:15,909
the standard way by which the Constitution gets amended. That is, Congress proposes an

414
00:32:15,909 --> 00:32:19,580
amendment and three-fourths of the states ratify it.

415
00:32:19,580 --> 00:32:23,280
But then at the convention, somebody said, "Well, what if Congress is the problem? What

416
00:32:23,280 --> 00:32:29,730
do we do then?" And so, they set up an alternative path. The alternative path is that states

417
00:32:29,730 --> 00:32:34,830
can call on Congress to call a convention. The convention then proposes the amendments

418
00:32:34,830 --> 00:32:37,730
and those amendments have to pass by three-fourths of the states.

419
00:32:37,730 --> 00:32:42,530
So either way, 38 states have to ratify an amendment, but the sources of those amendments

420
00:32:42,530 --> 00:32:49,070
are different. One is inside. One is outside. Now, all three of these insane ideas are really

421
00:32:49,070 --> 00:32:55,470
just ways around what is, I think, the cancer that is DC right now. And it's recognition

422
00:32:55,470 --> 00:33:03,059
that the ordinary means of politics are just not feasible for this kind of problem.

423
00:33:03,059 --> 00:33:07,659
In this--you can think of--extraordinary times, what's gonna be required here is that we do

424
00:33:07,659 --> 00:33:15,059
something that we have not done in a very long time--to build a politics that looks

425
00:33:15,059 --> 00:33:23,030
different from this. A politics that is not--to borrow from my older work-- a 'read-only'

426
00:33:23,030 --> 00:33:30,590
politics--where people sit there and passively consume what's fed to them in broadcast form.

427
00:33:30,590 --> 00:33:34,900
But instead, read/write politics where people become more active and engaged and reclaim

428
00:33:34,900 --> 00:33:41,549
this from the politicians. Now, here's the hard part. I don't actually know whether it's

429
00:33:41,549 --> 00:33:47,000
possible for us to do it. We don't have any good evidence that we, as a people, have the

430
00:33:47,000 --> 00:33:53,960
capacity to actually take back power from the professional politicians and reorder it.

431
00:33:53,960 --> 00:33:59,860
No good example in our recent past. Lots of good reason to believe people are too disengaged

432
00:33:59,860 --> 00:34:08,149
to be able to do it. I do think we know, however, how that process gets started. And it begins

433
00:34:08,149 --> 00:34:17,200
with, first, clarity. The clarity of Thoreau. The clarity of a root striker.

434
00:34:17,200 --> 00:34:20,729
So it might not be surprising that the coolest website of the Occupy movement is the Occupy

435
00:34:20,729 --> 00:34:27,079
Seattle movement. But if you go to their demands page, you're met with this list of literally

436
00:34:27,079 --> 00:34:31,659
hundreds of demands, which they are now trying to decide which are the most important of

437
00:34:31,659 --> 00:34:33,739
their demands.

438
00:34:33,739 --> 00:34:39,749
Everything from protect the environment to--my favorite--end the industrial prison complex.

439
00:34:39,749 --> 00:34:45,819
OK. Which is significant there and also here, but that's the scope. All right. Now, I think

440
00:34:45,819 --> 00:34:49,929
all of these demands are important. It would be great to get Congress or the states to

441
00:34:49,929 --> 00:34:52,169
address any of these demands.

442
00:34:52,169 --> 00:34:56,899
But the point is if you come forward with a list of a hundred demands, you come forward

443
00:34:56,899 --> 00:35:03,700
with noise. And nobody hears anything because they can't hear everything you're trying to

444
00:35:03,700 --> 00:35:10,759
say. Instead, this movement needs to find a way to clarify and focus. It needs to celebrate

445
00:35:10,759 --> 00:35:14,029
its diversity, recognize there are leftists in that movement.

446
00:35:14,029 --> 00:35:18,210
They shouldn't deny the fact they're leftists. There are people on the right in the Tea Party

447
00:35:18,210 --> 00:35:21,359
movement. They shouldn't deny they're from the right. They should all stick to their

448
00:35:21,359 --> 00:35:25,729
principle, but they've got to seek a common ground.

449
00:35:25,729 --> 00:35:32,249
Not compromise, but a common ground so that they actually do speak for the 99 percent,

450
00:35:32,249 --> 00:35:36,930
not just the 21 percent of people who identify as liberals or the 30 percent of people that

451
00:35:36,930 --> 00:35:42,099
identify as supporters of the Tea Party. I think there's an exercise we all should go

452
00:35:42,099 --> 00:35:42,269
through.

453
00:35:42,269 --> 00:35:47,969
We should be forced to come into a room and say, "We on the left, believe this. We on

454
00:35:47,969 --> 00:35:54,069
the right, believe this." But then ask the critical question, whether there's a set of

455
00:35:54,069 --> 00:36:00,789
beliefs that we all share, that could be the foundation for some important reform. And

456
00:36:00,789 --> 00:36:07,940
my view is that if we could focus people's attention on the wide range of issues that

457
00:36:07,940 --> 00:36:13,920
they're frustrated about and get them to connect the dots--so whether it's on the left, health

458
00:36:13,920 --> 00:36:16,589
care reform, or on the right, government bailouts.

459
00:36:16,589 --> 00:36:21,430
On the left, global warming or on the right, complex taxes. On the left, financial reform

460
00:36:21,430 --> 00:36:25,769
and on the right, financial reform. Whatever the issue is, if we could focus them, they

461
00:36:25,769 --> 00:36:34,039
would see this root cause. And the root cause is this picture. A democracy that is distracted

462
00:36:34,039 --> 00:36:36,319
by a dependence that was never intended.

463
00:36:36,319 --> 00:36:43,440
And the practice of the root striker has got to be to find a way to get, we the people,

464
00:36:43,440 --> 00:36:52,509
to see this root. So, that's number one--clarity. Number two is a kind of boldness. Now, in

465
00:36:52,509 --> 00:36:58,259
the book, I make a little bit of fun of a guy you're familiar with.

466
00:36:58,259 --> 00:36:59,069
[laughter]

467
00:36:59,069 --> 00:37:05,660
So, Eric Schmidt came to a talk at the American Academy in Berlin. And it was the first time

468
00:37:05,660 --> 00:37:09,279
I'd ever met him, first time I'd ever heard him talk. And I was amazed. It was the first

469
00:37:09,279 --> 00:37:14,400
time I'd ever heard anybody lay out the Google vision.

470
00:37:14,400 --> 00:37:18,930
And I was astonished. I mean, I was astonished by him. He was extraordinary, but I was astonished

471
00:37:18,930 --> 00:37:25,150
by the Google vision. This is a place. You saw these really big ideas about how they

472
00:37:25,150 --> 00:37:30,059
were gonna, you guys, were gonna remake the whole world. The whole world.

473
00:37:30,059 --> 00:37:34,369
And I was more excited about the work going on here than I had even been in my whole life.

474
00:37:34,369 --> 00:37:40,009
I felt like this was amazing. So then I thought, "OK. Wow. This is a company of big ideas."

475
00:37:40,009 --> 00:37:46,420
And I said, "Eric, so there's a whole bunch of public policy issues where the world is

476
00:37:46,420 --> 00:37:47,799
against you guys.

477
00:37:47,799 --> 00:37:55,539
And I think you guys are right." So, immigration, anti-trust, copyrights, network neutrality.

478
00:37:55,539 --> 00:37:59,180
You guys are on the right side of all of those issues and the rest of the world is on the

479
00:37:59,180 --> 00:38:03,369
wrong side." And the reason the rest of the world is on the wrong side is exactly the

480
00:38:03,369 --> 00:38:05,119
corruption that I've been talking about today.

481
00:38:05,119 --> 00:38:10,299
So, what are you gonna do about it? Are you gonna sit around and swipe away these bad

482
00:38:10,299 --> 00:38:15,180
policies like flies at a picnic? Or are you gonna solve it in the way Google addresses

483
00:38:15,180 --> 00:38:20,400
a problem and radically remakes the world to solve it? And for the first time in that

484
00:38:20,400 --> 00:38:24,549
evening, a tiny idea was expressed.

485
00:38:24,549 --> 00:38:28,039
And it was expressed by Eric Schmidt. Because he didn't have any big idea to think about

486
00:38:28,039 --> 00:38:33,150
solving this, the most fundamental problem. I agree with Matt that we, as a Republic face--any

487
00:38:33,150 --> 00:38:37,609
idea like, "Oh, we're gonna get the Google PAC to be more aggressive in teaching people

488
00:38:37,609 --> 00:38:39,559
what our views about policies were.

489
00:38:39,559 --> 00:38:45,430
Nothing to change the core root of the problem. Just playing the system with all sorts of

490
00:38:45,430 --> 00:38:53,809
resources allied against you. What we need here is a Google-level idea. What we need

491
00:38:53,809 --> 00:38:59,339
is the kind of big idea that you deploy in every other sphere of social life that might

492
00:38:59,339 --> 00:39:05,019
get this democracy to the place that could address this problem that I guarantee you

493
00:39:05,019 --> 00:39:12,039
95 percent of experts say is impossible for the world to solve, for us to solve.

494
00:39:12,039 --> 00:39:17,170
Impossible. But that's the sort of problem you guys take all the time. That's what you

495
00:39:17,170 --> 00:39:22,900
do. That's your job--the impossible problem. And we need that. And we need that from people

496
00:39:22,900 --> 00:39:26,299
like you. Now, number three, we need courage. And this is also related to the company, but

497
00:39:26,299 --> 00:39:28,109
I won't pick on the company anymore.

498
00:39:28,109 --> 00:39:33,849
Instead, I'll talk about my friend, Arnold Hiatt. So, he's a humble guy. This is the

499
00:39:33,849 --> 00:39:36,299
biggest I could find of him on the net.

500
00:39:36,299 --> 00:39:37,029
[laughter]

501
00:39:37,029 --> 00:39:39,219
[Lawrence Lessig coughs]

502
00:39:39,219 --> 00:39:44,319
Arnie was the president of Stride Rite. They make great shoes, like Keds. He's also a loyal

503
00:39:44,319 --> 00:39:50,880
Democrat. In 1996, he was the second largest contributor to the Democratic Party. So, in

504
00:39:50,880 --> 00:39:55,910
1997, Bill Clinton invited him and 30 other large contributors to a dinner at the Mayflower

505
00:39:55,910 --> 00:39:59,729
Hotel to tell him, the President, what he should do for the remaining part of his term.

506
00:39:59,729 --> 00:40:06,589
So, it's this dinner of these fat cats at the Mayflower Hotel to help guide policy in

507
00:40:06,589 --> 00:40:09,890
America. And each of them got to stand up and address the President. We didn't have

508
00:40:09,890 --> 00:40:13,920
any pictures. Arnie was the last one to speak. I kind of envision it like this.

509
00:40:13,920 --> 00:40:18,670
He stood up and he looked the President straight in the eye and he said, "Mr. President, I

510
00:40:18,670 --> 00:40:25,890
know you're an admirer of Franklin Delano Roosevelt. So I want you to put yourself in

511
00:40:25,890 --> 00:40:33,440
Roosevelt's shoes in 1940, when he reluctantly came to recognize that he needed to convince

512
00:40:33,440 --> 00:40:38,239
a reluctant nation to wage a war to save democracy."

513
00:40:38,239 --> 00:40:44,319
'Cause he said, "You, too, Mr. President. You, too, need to convince a reluctant nation

514
00:40:44,319 --> 00:40:53,779
to wage a war to save democracy. Not a war against fascists, but in a certain sense,

515
00:40:53,779 --> 00:40:59,839
a war against us fat cats." A war against people who believe, merely because they are

516
00:40:59,839 --> 00:41:03,930
rich, they are entitled to guide government policy.

517
00:41:03,930 --> 00:41:06,709
People who believe merely because they've been successful in the marketplace, they're

518
00:41:06,709 --> 00:41:12,670
entitled to have dinner with the President. People who have convinced the American public

519
00:41:12,670 --> 00:41:19,969
that this republic does not work. Now, put yourself in Hiatt's shoes. Imagine yourself

520
00:41:19,969 --> 00:41:24,999
in that room with 30 other fat cats and the President, basically saying to each of those

521
00:41:24,999 --> 00:41:29,799
fat cats and the President, "This is illegitimate what's happening here."

522
00:41:29,799 --> 00:41:32,529
There was silence after he said what he said.

523
00:41:32,529 --> 00:41:33,430
[laughter]

524
00:41:33,430 --> 00:41:37,569
The only published account of the evening says that Clinton's response effectively slashed

525
00:41:37,569 --> 00:41:45,239
Hiatt to pieces, humiliating him in front of the group. I think 14 years later, we need

526
00:41:45,239 --> 00:41:49,459
to recognize that it was Arnold Hiatt who was right.

527
00:41:49,459 --> 00:41:55,839
We do need to convince a reluctant nation to wage a war to save democracy. But where

528
00:41:55,839 --> 00:42:02,599
Arnold Hiatt was wrong was in his belief that politicians would wage that war. It's not

529
00:42:02,599 --> 00:42:08,660
gonna be politicians. It's gonna be citizens. It's going to be us. It's going to be root

530
00:42:08,660 --> 00:42:09,989
strikers.

531
00:42:09,989 --> 00:42:17,130
And I pray it's going to be you. It is our job that requires our courage. It is our republic.

532
00:42:17,130 --> 00:42:25,219
It is ours, not theirs. They took it away, but we let them. Here's one more story before

533
00:42:25,219 --> 00:42:31,479
I stop. So, many of you might remember--actually, many of you weren't born, but OK.

534
00:42:31,479 --> 00:42:40,630
Many of you might remember this event, 1989. The Exxon Valdez crashed into Prince William

535
00:42:40,630 --> 00:42:47,019
Sound, ran aground, eleven million gallons of oil was spilled into the Sound. This is

536
00:42:47,019 --> 00:42:51,499
the recording of Captain Joseph Hazelwood when he called in the accident.

537
00:42:51,499 --> 00:42:53,619
[plays sound clip]

538
00:42:53,619 --> 00:42:54,329
[static]

539
00:42:54,329 --> 00:43:03,509
>>Captain Joseph Hazelwood: Yeah. Ah, it’s VALDEZ back. Ah, we’ve— ah, should be

540
00:43:03,509 --> 00:43:14,109
on your radar there— we’ve fetched up, ah, hard aground north of, ah, Goose Island

541
00:43:14,109 --> 00:43:26,119
off Bligh Reef. And, ah, evidently, ah, leaking some oil, and, ah, we’re gonna be here for

542
00:43:26,119 --> 00:43:30,469
a while. And, ah, if you want, ah, so you’re notified. Over.

543
00:43:30,469 --> 00:43:30,469
[end sound clip]

544
00:43:30,469 --> 00:43:34,930
>>Lawrence Lessig: And ah, if you want, as, so you're notified. Over. Now, as many of

545
00:43:34,930 --> 00:43:39,009
you are thinking, there might be a little bit of a question about whether Captain Joseph

546
00:43:39,009 --> 00:43:44,950
Hazelwood was intoxicated at the time this accident occurred. He denied it. He said he

547
00:43:44,950 --> 00:43:47,809
only had four vodkas before he got on the ship.

548
00:43:47,809 --> 00:43:51,579
But his blood level alcohol indicated he must have been at least six times over the legal

549
00:43:51,579 --> 00:43:58,140
limit when he climbed on board that ship. But he fought it. His lawyers fought it hard.

550
00:43:58,140 --> 00:44:02,670
There was some ambiguity in the evidence and he was not convicted. So, let's say there

551
00:44:02,670 --> 00:44:09,339
was doubt about whether Hazelwood was drunk when he was captaining a supertanker.

552
00:44:09,339 --> 00:44:15,130
What there was no doubt about was that he had a problem with alcohol. His mother testified.

553
00:44:15,130 --> 00:44:20,269
She had known he had a problem with alcohol. In 1985, four years before the accident, Exxon

554
00:44:20,269 --> 00:44:24,400
had treated him for his problem with alcohol. After the accident, Exxon's President said

555
00:44:24,400 --> 00:44:26,380
he "thought he had mastered the problem."

556
00:44:26,380 --> 00:44:33,180
But in 1986, he had his driver's license revoked for a DUI. In 1988, he had his driver's license

557
00:44:33,180 --> 00:44:38,269
revoked for a DUI. At the time he was captaining a supertanker, he was not allowed to drive

558
00:44:38,269 --> 00:44:39,559
a VW Beetle.

559
00:44:39,559 --> 00:44:40,519
[laughter]

560
00:44:40,519 --> 00:44:50,249
OK. But forget Hazelwood. Instead, I want you to think about those around Captain Hazelwood,

561
00:44:50,249 --> 00:44:56,700
these other officers. People who could have picked up a phone while a drunk was driving

562
00:44:56,700 --> 00:45:01,130
a supertanker. I want you to think about the people who did nothing because all but one

563
00:45:01,130 --> 00:45:04,859
of those officers did nothing.

564
00:45:04,859 --> 00:45:10,880
What do we think about them? Now, I ask this question because as I think about the problem

565
00:45:10,880 --> 00:45:18,819
this nation faces increasingly, I believe we are they. This nation faces critical problems

566
00:45:18,819 --> 00:45:22,700
requiring serious attention, but we don't have institutions capable of giving them this

567
00:45:22,700 --> 00:45:22,999
attention.

568
00:45:22,999 --> 00:45:34,529
They are distracted, unable to focus. And who is to blame for that? Who is responsible?

569
00:45:34,529 --> 00:45:40,200
I think it's too easy to point to the Blagojeviches and hold them responsible, to point to the

570
00:45:40,200 --> 00:45:45,999
evil people and hold them responsible. It's not the evil people. It’s the good people.

571
00:45:45,999 --> 00:45:47,739
It's the decent people.

572
00:45:47,739 --> 00:45:55,140
It's the people who could've picked up a phone. It's us. It's we, the most privileged. Because

573
00:45:55,140 --> 00:45:59,709
the most outrageous part here is that these corruptions, of course, were primed by the

574
00:45:59,709 --> 00:46:07,700
most privileged, but they were permitted by the passivity of the most privileged as well--permitted

575
00:46:07,700 --> 00:46:09,420
by us.

576
00:46:09,420 --> 00:46:15,569
When Ben Franklin was carried from the Constitutional Convention in the summer of 1787, a woman

577
00:46:15,569 --> 00:46:20,009
stopped him on the street and said, "Mr. Franklin, what have you wrought?" Franklin replied,

578
00:46:20,009 --> 00:46:30,410
"A republic, ma'am, if you can keep it." A republic. A representative democracy.

579
00:46:30,410 --> 00:46:41,769
A democracy dependent upon the people alone. We have lost that republic and all of us have

580
00:46:41,769 --> 00:46:53,259
to work to get it back. Thank you very much.

581
00:46:53,259 --> 00:46:54,989
[applause]

582
00:46:54,989 --> 00:47:08,489
I'm happy to take questions. I'm a law professor, so I could call on people if you don't ask

583
00:47:08,489 --> 00:47:09,170
questions.

584
00:47:09,170 --> 00:47:09,859
[laughter]

585
00:47:09,859 --> 00:47:11,239
Yes, sir.

586
00:47:11,239 --> 00:47:18,440
>>MALE #1: Do you have any opinions on electoral reform? I can't vote for the party I want

587
00:47:18,440 --> 00:47:22,999
'cause if I vote for anybody other than Republicans or Democrats, my vote is wasted.

588
00:47:22,999 --> 00:47:26,779
>>Lawrence Lessig: Yeah. I think that there's a whole list of other reforms that we also

589
00:47:26,779 --> 00:47:33,269
need to think about with democracy. The way we gerrymander districts, the way we have

590
00:47:33,269 --> 00:47:38,099
winner-take-all seats. All of these things I think are critically important, too. I'm

591
00:47:38,099 --> 00:47:41,699
trying to think about the sequence of problems.

592
00:47:41,699 --> 00:47:45,380
And I think the sequence of problems is, this is the problem we need to solve first to create

593
00:47:45,380 --> 00:47:49,039
an atmosphere, an opportunity, to begin to address the other problems. So, I'm happy

594
00:47:49,039 --> 00:47:54,459
to sign up with you on that once we fix the problem I'm talking about here first. Yeah.

595
00:47:54,459 --> 00:47:58,299
>>MALE #2: Hi. Two quick questions. The first is, what's the name of the Senator that came

596
00:47:58,299 --> 00:48:01,549
up with the little bastards that are greedy in the greedy bastards quote?

597
00:48:01,549 --> 00:48:05,469
>>Lawrence Lessig: He would not go on the record with him name, [audience chuckles]

598
00:48:05,469 --> 00:48:09,229
so the Huffington Post piece says it's an anonymous Senator who said this.

599
00:48:09,229 --> 00:48:14,959
>>MALE #2: OK. Secondly, about the Constitution Convention, using say, legislatures. How are

600
00:48:14,959 --> 00:48:17,999
the state representatives gonna be different from the national representatives? 'Cause

601
00:48:17,999 --> 00:48:22,119
aren't they just as greedy and looking to climb the ladder of political opportunity?

602
00:48:22,119 --> 00:48:27,160
>>Lawrence Lessig: Yeah, so state legislatures just passed resolutions calling on the Convention.

603
00:48:27,160 --> 00:48:30,660
And the question is, how do you populate the Convention? And here's the really insane,

604
00:48:30,660 --> 00:48:34,140
totally completely insane idea, that I have for the Convention.

605
00:48:34,140 --> 00:48:38,660
I think the Convention should be populated by a random selection, random proportional

606
00:48:38,660 --> 00:48:45,789
selection, of citizens. Now, people think that's crazy. And I agree. You're not gonna

607
00:48:45,789 --> 00:48:47,589
argue anybody into insanity.

608
00:48:47,589 --> 00:48:54,249
I think what you've gotta do is to show them, like let's run 30 or 40 or 50 of these mock

609
00:48:54,249 --> 00:48:58,819
Constitutional Conventions where we have deliberative polls where we randomly select a representative

610
00:48:58,819 --> 00:49:03,440
mix of people from a jurisdiction and we give them the information they need.

611
00:49:03,440 --> 00:49:07,279
And we have them work through the issue and see what they come up with. California has

612
00:49:07,279 --> 00:49:11,249
a good example of this. The California Forward Project ran a deliberative project, deliberative

613
00:49:11,249 --> 00:49:15,859
poll, around the question of what California should do. And the product of that is extraordinarily

614
00:49:15,859 --> 00:49:20,479
impressive--much better than anything the professionals did.

615
00:49:20,479 --> 00:49:25,449
And I think that signals the core insight, which is politics is one of these rare sports

616
00:49:25,449 --> 00:49:29,180
where the amateurs are actually better than the professional. Because the professional

617
00:49:29,180 --> 00:49:35,380
is good at figuring out how to benefit the special interests that the professional depends

618
00:49:35,380 --> 00:49:35,880
upon.

619
00:49:35,880 --> 00:49:41,380
And the amateur, like a jury, can be summoned into a state where they're not thinking so

620
00:49:41,380 --> 00:49:45,619
much about the special interest. So, I think the only way a Convention makes sense is if

621
00:49:45,619 --> 00:49:49,569
we can avoid it being captured in exactly the same way government has been captured.

622
00:49:49,569 --> 00:49:54,999
And I think the only way to that is to have this randomly selected body be the Convention.

623
00:49:54,999 --> 00:50:00,759
>>MALE #3: First of all, thank you so much for being here and for devoting so much time

624
00:50:00,759 --> 00:50:01,859
to this very important issue.

625
00:50:01,859 --> 00:50:02,859
>>Lawrence Lessig: Thank you.

626
00:50:02,859 --> 00:50:11,039
>>MALE #3: My question is, given the election of Obama in 2008, and then the following three

627
00:50:11,039 --> 00:50:17,989
years, how much of the overwhelming Democratic majorities and the election Obama have helped

628
00:50:17,989 --> 00:50:21,489
the momentum of this campaign finance reform campaign?

629
00:50:21,489 --> 00:50:25,900
In that, I think there's a lot of people who sort of generally understand the Republicans

630
00:50:25,900 --> 00:50:32,920
were bought, but I think when the nation was rallied around this feeling in 2008, and then

631
00:50:32,920 --> 00:50:36,109
the disappointment that's come out of it, I just--.

632
00:50:36,109 --> 00:50:44,529
>>Lawrence Lessig: Yeah. You and I share that view precisely. The book is--. Obama was a

633
00:50:44,529 --> 00:50:48,920
friend. He was a colleague of mine in Chicago. I campaigned for him. I worked hard for him.

634
00:50:48,920 --> 00:50:54,420
I talked to a lot of people in here when he first was on the trail about how he'd be so

635
00:50:54,420 --> 00:50:56,969
great for what we cared about.

636
00:50:56,969 --> 00:51:02,039
But the only reason I think he was credible as a candidate over Hilary Clinton, was that

637
00:51:02,039 --> 00:51:06,440
he, unlike Hilary Clinton, said, "This system is the problem. We have to take up the fight

638
00:51:06,440 --> 00:51:10,269
to change the way Washington works. And if we don't, our children are gonna be facing

639
00:51:10,269 --> 00:51:11,680
the same problems we faced.

640
00:51:11,680 --> 00:51:15,170
And our children's children will be facing the same problems they face." So, he made

641
00:51:15,170 --> 00:51:20,549
it--. He said twice at least, I have recorded in the campaign, "This is the reason I am

642
00:51:20,549 --> 00:51:26,809
running. To change the system." And then he got elected and he opened up the Clinton playbook.

643
00:51:26,809 --> 00:51:30,549
And he ran his Administration according to the way Hilary Clinton would've run her Administration.

644
00:51:30,549 --> 00:51:33,640
And I think maybe Clinton would have done a better job. I don't know. But if Clinton

645
00:51:33,640 --> 00:51:38,890
had done exactly what Barack Obama did, I think we should say, "Great. You did what

646
00:51:38,890 --> 00:51:43,009
would come from that kind of Administration. But you promised, Barack Obama, a different

647
00:51:43,009 --> 00:51:44,940
Administration."

648
00:51:44,940 --> 00:51:50,469
I feel it's a betrayal from what we thought we were getting. It makes it really hard for

649
00:51:50,469 --> 00:51:57,559
any of us to believe that reform is gonna come from the top or from any insider. So,

650
00:51:57,559 --> 00:52:03,369
I think that this is why it becomes critical to think about these outside traditional politics

651
00:52:03,369 --> 00:52:08,539
solutions, which is unfortunately, I think, the only path we've got right now.

652
00:52:08,539 --> 00:52:13,229
He doesn't stand credible on this issue. The one person who is credible on this issue is--.

653
00:52:13,229 --> 00:52:19,699
I will vote for Obama over any Republican except one. The Republican you've not heard

654
00:52:19,699 --> 00:52:25,069
of. His name is Buddy Roemer. Now, it's funny you haven't heard of him. I mean, he was a

655
00:52:25,069 --> 00:52:25,069
governor.

656
00:52:25,069 --> 00:52:29,140
He was a four-term Congressman. He ran a bank for 20 years without taking government bailouts

657
00:52:29,140 --> 00:52:35,069
and successfully created this community bank. But he has made a pledge in his campaign for

658
00:52:35,069 --> 00:52:38,069
the Republican nomination for President where he will take no more than a hundred dollars

659
00:52:38,069 --> 00:52:39,539
from anybody.

660
00:52:39,539 --> 00:52:44,400
He will commit to no PAC money, full disclosure, because he wants to as his slogan, "It's free

661
00:52:44,400 --> 00:52:47,420
to lead." But because he takes no more than a hundred dollars, everybody says, "Well,

662
00:52:47,420 --> 00:52:50,900
you can't possibly win so, we're not even gonna pay attention to you." So, he hasn't

663
00:52:50,900 --> 00:52:55,140
even had a chance to make this case in the debate.

664
00:52:55,140 --> 00:52:59,690
But if Buddy Roemer were the candidate in the Republican side, that would be a game-changer.

665
00:52:59,690 --> 00:53:03,910
If it were a Republican making this argument, then it would be much easier to imagine this

666
00:53:03,910 --> 00:53:05,529
argument actually having play.

667
00:53:05,529 --> 00:53:08,099
>>MALE #3: Thank you.

668
00:53:08,099 --> 00:53:14,979
>>MALE #4: Thank you for coming to talk to us today. I have a question about--. I think

669
00:53:14,979 --> 00:53:18,779
we all can understand that there's obviously a role that Congress has in perpetuating this

670
00:53:18,779 --> 00:53:22,670
system. And there's a role that we all have in our lack of action in perpetuating this

671
00:53:22,670 --> 00:53:23,180
system.

672
00:53:23,180 --> 00:53:25,509
But I think one thing, you didn't get a chance to talk about and I don't know if you talk

673
00:53:25,509 --> 00:53:30,799
about it in your book--I look forward to reading it--is the role of the Supreme Court and notably

674
00:53:30,799 --> 00:53:33,839
one of your own bosses.

675
00:53:33,839 --> 00:53:38,999
And how you talk about the people want to be more involved, but at this point, the Supreme

676
00:53:38,999 --> 00:53:46,559
Court has defined "person" to be an incredibly broad system and how we can move away from

677
00:53:46,559 --> 00:53:51,039
treating corporations as people without their movement and how we can actually affect meaningful

678
00:53:51,039 --> 00:53:53,440
change without movement on the Supreme Court.

679
00:53:53,440 --> 00:53:57,380
And a Supreme Court that seems very unlikely to move on that particular issue.

680
00:53:57,380 --> 00:54:01,569
>>Lawrence Lessig: Yeah. So, the particular version of public funding that I advance is

681
00:54:01,569 --> 00:54:10,069
completely immune from Supreme Court invalidation. Nothing in the Supreme Court, even this Supreme

682
00:54:10,069 --> 00:54:13,140
Court's doctrine, would draw this type of public funding into the out.

683
00:54:13,140 --> 00:54:20,150
But it leaves the problem of independent expenditures, both of individuals, George Soros or the Koch

684
00:54:20,150 --> 00:54:25,069
Brothers, as well as corporations, which now have unlimited amounts to spend. And it took

685
00:54:25,069 --> 00:54:29,880
a comedian to teach the Supreme Court that, in fact, they didn't have to be disclosed

686
00:54:29,880 --> 00:54:33,400
if they all could be secret because you could channel them through a C4 that would itself

687
00:54:33,400 --> 00:54:37,239
be identified, but the contributors to the C4 not. OK.

688
00:54:37,239 --> 00:54:41,729
So, we have to address the problem of independent expenditures. Now, my view is the law should

689
00:54:41,729 --> 00:54:46,779
not ban anybody from saying anything. I think corporations should have a right to participate.

690
00:54:46,779 --> 00:54:52,650
But they shouldn't be able to dominate the political process so that we have not just

691
00:54:52,650 --> 00:54:58,150
shape-shifting to appeal to the funders, but we have shape-shifting to appeal to the independent

692
00:54:58,150 --> 00:55:03,420
expenditure guys and therefore, the same kind of dependency that corrupts the system.

693
00:55:03,420 --> 00:55:09,589
So, the only way to get there without imagining a Supreme Court reversing itself is to give

694
00:55:09,589 --> 00:55:14,390
Congress the power to limit, but not to ban, independent expenditures. And if you're gonna

695
00:55:14,390 --> 00:55:18,589
change the Constitution from that standpoint, I say let's have an amendment that has three

696
00:55:18,589 --> 00:55:19,309
components.

697
00:55:19,309 --> 00:55:25,609
Number one, public elections must be publicly funded. Number two, contributions to candidates

698
00:55:25,609 --> 00:55:31,729
should be capped. I'd say at a hundred dollars--equivalent of a hundred dollars. Number three, Congress

699
00:55:31,729 --> 00:55:36,489
has to have the power to limit, but not to ban, independent expenditures of both corporations

700
00:55:36,489 --> 00:55:37,279
and people.

701
00:55:37,279 --> 00:55:41,269
It just has to have the capacity to create a time for election that's not just about

702
00:55:41,269 --> 00:55:46,549
the money. But getting to the place that we can have the chance to have that amendment

703
00:55:46,549 --> 00:55:51,900
passed, is the hard thing because again, I looked it up, there's zero chance Congress

704
00:55:51,900 --> 00:55:53,099
is gonna propose such an amendment.

705
00:55:53,099 --> 00:55:57,150
And so, if Congress is not gonna propose the amendment, what's the path to get it at least

706
00:55:57,150 --> 00:55:58,660
on the table for states to adopt?

707
00:55:58,660 --> 00:56:00,420
>>MALE #4: Thank you very much.

708
00:56:00,420 --> 00:56:01,299
>>Lawrence Lessig: Yup.

709
00:56:01,299 --> 00:56:07,009
>>FEMALE #1: Hi. I'm wondering about your perspective on venture philanthropy and the

710
00:56:07,009 --> 00:56:12,509
role of money outside the congressional system. Is it a pure good? I'm thinking, for example,

711
00:56:12,509 --> 00:56:16,259
of education reform, the Charter School movement, that sort of thing.

712
00:56:16,259 --> 00:56:20,699
Or, is there some danger there that money is talking more than it ought to, even in

713
00:56:20,699 --> 00:56:21,150
those worlds?

714
00:56:21,150 --> 00:56:26,390
>>Lawrence Lessig: Yeah. It's a great question. I don't think you can say without reservations

715
00:56:26,390 --> 00:56:32,390
that it's good. Although, you can say it's really great that it's out there, right? There

716
00:56:32,390 --> 00:56:41,019
are foundations that are not disciplined enough to insulate and protect the recipients from

717
00:56:41,019 --> 00:56:43,699
developing the wrong kind of dependency on the foundation.

718
00:56:43,699 --> 00:56:48,749
So, it distorts them in a way that I think is not productive. And so, harmful. But I

719
00:56:48,749 --> 00:56:55,900
think there are others that adopt a very appropriate relationship to the targets of their giving

720
00:56:55,900 --> 00:56:59,829
that allows them to maintain their independence, but does support their work. So, I think in

721
00:56:59,829 --> 00:57:04,459
a case-by-case way, we gotta make a decision about what's the appropriate kind of relationship

722
00:57:04,459 --> 00:57:05,739
to be drawing in that case.

723
00:57:05,739 --> 00:57:07,369
>>FEMALE #1: Thank you.

724
00:57:07,369 --> 00:57:12,189
>>MALE #5: So, we're out of time to take more questions, but thanks again for coming.

725
00:57:12,189 --> 00:57:13,380
>>Lawrence Lessig: Thank you. Thanks a lot.

726
00:57:13,380 --> 99:59:59,999
[applause]