Lessig: reform Congress now
According to The Nation's editor, Katrina vanden Heuvel, Lawrence Lessig's essay on reforming Congress, in the magazine's Feb. 22 issue, is the "most trafficked piece" the magazine has published in the last six months. In it, the Stanford law professor--best known for his work on intellectual-property kaw--argues for a three-pronged attack on money in politics, which he blames for turning Americans (rightfully) against government.
First, he endorses the public financing of campaigns, perhaps supplemented with small individual donations (capped at, for example, $100). That would get politicians off the hook of having to buckrake in order to run for office. Second, he would extend the ban on moving from the House or the U.S. Senate to a lobbying job to a full seven years, long enough to make it impractical for most politicians to capitalize on their erstwhile clout.
Third, because the Supreme Court has demonstrated extreme skepticism about restricting the raising or spending of money during elections, Lessig says the time is now for a constitutional amendment on this score, making clear that the kind of restrictions he has in mind are lawful.
Pie-in-the-sky? Lessig doesn't disagree:
No doubt constitutional amendments are politically impossible--just as wresting a republic from the grip of a monarchy, or abolishing slavery or segregation, or electing Ronald Reagan or Barack Obama was "politically impossible." But conventional minds are always wrong about pivot moments in a nation's history. Obama promised this was such a moment.
One striking aspect of the essay is how Lessig packages his views to appeal to right-wing "tea party" protesters as well as disgruntled liberals. (Note the reference to Reagan.) In a move that has led some on the left to object, he suggests that the right-wing anti-Obama protests--and the election of Scott Brown in Massachusetts--tap into the same generalized discontent that birthed groups like MoveOn and Bold Progressives.
