Anybody got into the book yet? Opinions?
I’m about a third of the way in. So far it’s hardly revelatory. I’ve been taking some notes on my Kindle, when I’m done I’ll go ahead & post them.
Actually, I’d love to do a sort of book club with this thing. If the other folks who have the book want to chime in, I’d love to get a discussion going.
I don’t think it’s meant to point out a new problem, so if you’re looking for revelations look elsewhere. It just shows the systematic corruption, how it affects otherwise good people, and that voting Republican and Democrat at this point is an exercise in futility.
Thus far he hasn’t demonstrated the latter at all. They may both take roughly the same amount of corporate cash, but in terms of legislative outcomes a democrat dominated legislature and presidency will produce far different results than one dominated by republicans. His conclusion (at least as you characterize it) is not supported at all by evidence.
I just barely started reading, but I sense a bias here. ;)
Of course, I’m open about it. And honestly I haven’t gotten to the part where he starts drawing conclusions. The first 1/3 of the book is mostly just establishing that money can influence politics, and that there’s a lot of money floating around influencing politics.
I was just responding to Jakub’s characterization of the conclusion. Just imagine a simple counterfactual: what does the 2008-2010 legislative session look like with President McCain, 60 GOP Senators, and a large GOP majority in the House?
Just tweaking you. ;) I’m a data guy, and at this point I hate the Republicans more than I hate the Democrats (don’t like either) so I’ll see what my brain tells me when I get through it. But there are plenty of examples of money influencing Dems as well as GOPers (look at the loopholes, etc. they tried to get in the health care bill and how much it favors the pharma and insurance companies, how they backed off of raising taxes on the rich when Boehner declared, way back when, that the GOP would not oppose letting the tax cuts on the upper income earners expire if that was what it would take to keep them for the middle class, etc.) If the question is whether influence impacts one side or the other “more”, eh. I’ll just read the book and then opine. ;)
Oh of course money impacts both sides! You’re absolutely right about that. But IMO that doesn’t (as Jakub says) mean that there’s no point in choosing one.
In the Democratic case you have money being spent to weaken a new set of regulations (e.g., PPACA). In the Republican case, that money is going to be spent to weaken existing regulations, new ones are entirely off the table! So while money is absolutely influencing the outcome in both cases, the outcome is still wildly divergent.
Sincere question: how many examples are there that demonstrate gross divergence of results? Not speeches, positions, etc. but actual legislation? I’m not where I can do a lot of the searching myself at the moment, but to be fair you’d have to have examples of money driven legislation by both sides to compare.
That’s going to be tough because it’s going to end up being all counterfactuals, especially since (by and large) the GOP has recently avoided offering specific policy proposals to compare the stuff we got with. The only specific plan I’m aware of that the GOP has offered lately is the Ryan budget, which was ten sorts of awful.
So, I’m doing this from hazy memory, but as I recall, Lessig’s point isn’t that Republicans and Democrats have identical policy outcomes because of money, but rather that Republicans and Democrats have many identical policy outcomes because of money.
By Lessig’s own admission, this realization initially grew out of the I.P. / “Free Culture” advocacy work he used to engage in. I remember an anecdote of his where he was shocked not that his position was rejected, but that so many politicians he spoke to had no idea that his position even existed. Congress was writing bi-partisan copyright legislation based on a belief that “everyone agrees with this”, when in reality “everyone” was a small group of special interests willing to spend a lot of money making sure their voice was heard.
Anyway, I like the idea of your impromptu book club, and I’ll try to find some time over the weekend to sit down and do some reading. Then perhaps my recollections will be less hazy, and more coherent.
Yeah I’ve got no doubt that’s how it went down with copyright. Keep in mind that there are different classes of issues; copyright is one with a) very very strong industry support for one side and b) not much vocal support for the other. It’s a very important issue, but you can probably count on one hand the number of voters for whom its a make or break issue. As a result you’re much, much less likely to see significant differences between the parties on that one.
Hell, arguably the outcome here has less to do with lots of corporate money than it does with a relatively assymetrical level of interest. You have a small number of people willing to spend lots of time/money going after Congress on one side of the issue, but there’s not a corresponding group on the other side. Add to the fact that it’s a fairly technical subject once you get deep into the weeds, and…
Yeah I’ve got no doubt that’s how it went down with copyright. Keep in mind that there are different classes of issues; copyright is one with a) very very strong industry support for one side and b) not much vocal support for the other. It’s a very important issue, but you can probably count on one hand the number of voters for whom its a make or break issue. As a result you’re much, much less likely to see significant differences between the parties on that one.
I’m not sure how a book club works online, but I’ll participate in it or at least help facilitate it if possible.
I’ve done online book clubs. Usually you commit to reading a certain amount per week, and then you discuss the previous week’s reading over the next week. Since we’re all obviously reading at different paces, probably it’s just best to free-form it and bring up discussions / points / etc as you read them. It’s not like a fiction book where we are worried about spoilers!
Interesting developments over the weekend regarding SOPA. I wonder how they fit into Lessig’s model of Congressional politics. That’s not a troll btw, I’m honestly curious if he has a model wherein public outcry can outweigh campaign contributions.
I have read a couple of articles, one was in Slate some years ago, in which one point which is made is that the “votes for money” is present, but a more insidious effect of lobbying is how much Congressmen/women turn to industry lobbyists for capsule information on an issue up for a vote. I.e. a vote on copyright, they go to a Lobbyist that regularly contributes to them and thus with whom they have a relationship, and they request a summary package they can quickly digest. This being due to the information overload needed for so many votes/issues in so many areas, beyond what their own staff can handle.
However, I believe that these articles also make clear the lobbyist they turn to the most are the ones who contribute the most and thus the ones with whom they have the “closest” relationship.
That pretty much summarizes the problem exactly, Jeff. Lessig spends a lot of time explaining it in detail and giving examples in the early parts of the book, which you can skip if that’s already your world view.
It helped me rationalize and (perhaps) understand why so many people who mean so well end up doing so badly in government. The important step is in taking the government back from those with excessive influence.
As the SOPA/PIPA campaign shows, the public can unite behind issues, especially ones that the media doesn’t pre-divide them on.