Lessig Bets On the Net To Clean Up Government

christian.einfeldt writes "Stanford Law Professor Larry Lessig really 'gets it' when it comes to the efficacy of distributed open source code production. Now he is attempting to use distributed production methods to expose corruption in the US Congress with the launch of another 'CC' organization — this time it's called 'Change Congress'. CC (as opposed to cc for Creative Commons) would invite users to track whether US legislators are willing to commit to Change Congress' four pledges. CC will rely on users to record and map the positions of candidates who are running for open seats in the US House and Senate. Change Congress will use a Google mash-up to create a map depicting which legislators have taken the CC pledge, which have declined, and which have signaled support for planks in the Change-Congress platform. The four pledges (which are not numbered 0 through 3) call for greater transparency in government, and less influence of private money in shaping legislation."

4 pledges

[esocid]

Since the summary doesn't list what they all are. Here they are:

1. No money from lobbyists or PACs
2. Vote to end earmarks
3. Support publicly-financed campaigns
4. Support reform to increase Congressional transparency

Re:Is he serious?

[hotdiggitydawg]

Please don't forget that many wrong voices don't make right. The danger of mobs is mob rule at the expense of the minority rights.

In most cases, these "minority rights" (sic) of which you speak are corporate special interests, so they don't even deserve the label "rights" in the same sense as human rights, voter rights, etc. Yet they still seem to be put first in the current system.

In any case, this project won't force the system to change - all it does is effectively add a greater degree of transparency. Its up to the people to force the changes they want.

Re:Public Financing : Bad, Earmarks, Good

[hyades1]

You misunderstand how the system works. Taxpayer funding for elections works just fine in Canada and other civilized countries. Ensuring fairness is trivially easy, and it cuts those idiotic two-year American campaigns to a matter of weeks. And our politicians actually do real work, instead of spending every moment trying to raise more money so they can outspend their rivals in the next election.

There's still problems in Canada relating to lobbyists and special interests, and the system (though better than the US system) still has many flaws. But any slight tendency to favour existing parties is easily overcome. Canada's Green Party is knocking roadblocks aside right this minute, and will likely elect one or more candidates in the next federal election.

I agree with you that sacrificing civil liberties for security won't make you safe. And the cure is definitely worse than the disease.

Re:Naive

[Maxo-Texas]

Agreed-- admittedly Ron Paul had little chance of winning, but he was practically erased by both CNN and Fox.
Even after getting a higher % of the votes than Guiliani, he was omitted from the debate and Guiliani was a allowed in.

The local "conservative" radio station (i.e. pro wealthy people, anti-abortion types) tore him to pieces from their first question with stuff like "when did you quit beating your wife".

The same thing happens for minor democratic candidates.

It's really blatant some times.