Lawrence Lessig to Leave Copyright Sphere 192
brandonY writes "The founder of Creative Commons, the Stanford lawyer behind the 'Eldred v. Ashcroft' case, and the author of 'Code' has spent the last 10 years working tirelessly on behalf of limited copyright terms, net neutrality, and the public domain. Tuesday, Lawrence Lessig announced on his blog that he has "decided to shift my academic work, and soon, my activism" from fighting the good fight for the public domain to fighting the good fight against corruption and the influence of big money's effects on legislation in general."
I hate to be negative... (Score:2, Insightful)
..but good luck with that. :/
Re: (Score:3, Insightful)
Angelina Jolie has vowed to single-handedly adopt every single orphaned African child.
Tom Cruise has vowed to eliminate mental illness worldwide with vitamins.
I vow to make every post +5 moderation on Slashdot.
Re: (Score:3, Insightful)
Larry, I love ya babe but, ya know, you've still never won a case, ever.
Best of luck though. It's better you're around and keep trying. Welcome to "middle age and wtf happened".
Re: (Score:3, Insightful)
So how many cases do you have to win in order to have truth and wisdom in the books you write?
How many to be a good and ethical person?
How many to do noble, important things and not have wannabes in the peanut gallery take "I met him once and he wasn't all that" pot shots at you?
It's the Hacker's Quest (Score:3, Insightful)
Well, yeah, it's a tough fight to take on. On the other hand though, it's a good thing. Most developers think that you shouldn't work around bugs, or fix surface problems, but should instead drill right down to the fundamental causes of things, and fix those. This way, you solve many problems in one go, and produce more elegant, lasting, maintainable solutions. You might say that this is what hackers are all about: finding ever more elegant solutions to
Re: (Score:2)
Either remove corporate money, and limit personal donations,
or have one big pool of money that everyone can contribute to
( and all politicians draw from equally ) without any ability
to direct money to particular candidates.
Doing it the other way around would mean that corporations
and the wealthy would be completely unregulated ( which I
know fits some agendas, but it ignores human nature ).
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
idea. It dilutes the effect, but does not do away with it. So, those
wishing to control the agenda will just make sure to invest 2 or 3 dollars
for every one they invest now. They obviously think the 1 dollar is
effective in getting their agenda enacted, I dont see them stopping at
2 or 3.
Re: (Score:2)
It dramatically reduces the value of every dollar spent because each dollar spent is not only worth half what it was before, but also assists all your competitors.
Arguably it cuts the value of your money down to a quarter of what it was. But the actual effect might be greater or
Re: (Score:2)
I am of the opinion that the only direction our elected officials should have
should be votes.
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
But, as things stand now, money is more important than votes,
and that is what our elected officials listen to. I think
this is wrong, and I dont see too many other ways to eliminate
this influence. So, I would rather have the donations fall
off than continue with corporations seeking profits defining
how government is run. ( note, there is nothing wrong with
corporations seeking profits, that is fully expected, but it
is no way to run a government )
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
No one is talking here about them not having a vote. And why
should a corporation proxy their vote for them? Why should
a corporation have input into government is the question. Why should
a person working for a large corporation ( assuming this nominal
person's goals align exactly with the corporate goals ) have a larger
voice than someone working for a smaller corporation that has less
money to donate? Or someone who would not vote along the
Re: (Score:2)
That is what has been done here in Belgium, after several high-case money donation scandals and briberies.
Every party (we are lucky to have more than two, and a more fair voting system) gets a donation according to the number of voters and the number of seats they have after the elections.This also means that parties can lose part of their donation when their election share drops.
Re: (Score:2)
would tend toward reinforcing the incumbent. Do you find that to be
the case? Do they have a method for parties tht have never been up
for election before to gain access to donations?
Re: (Score:3, Insightful)
my mind when discussing this issue with a friend of mind.
I dont know that the nickle and diming away of the money is
a big deal, they cant spend it on themselves.
The bigger deal in my mind ( aside from putting it into
effect in the first place ) is that people are not donating
money, by and large, from a desire to see the system work,
but from a desire to influence and control. But I dont think
we want that money anyway.
Re: (Score:2, Interesting)
It's an interesting idea, I guess I'm n
Re: (Score:2)
can find and fix them. It will take a lot to get this enacted, as the
entrenched interests will be quite against it, as they like buying influence.
Re: (Score:3, Insightful)
Ok, I'll expose all the problems, not that I disagree with the idea. I think it's in our best interests to hold publicly funded campaigns, and if that means candidates have less total money to spend on the campaign, so be it.
Problem #1: Who qualifies as a candidate? We already have this problem in our current system, so let's consider it. Anybody can be elected if enough people vote for them, right? But the writing on the walls says if you run as a write-in candidate, only an extreme situation (as we r
Re:I hate to be negative... (Score:5, Informative)
This is a surprising comment to me, given the general political awareness and libertarian leanings on slashdot. Not only has it been seriously discussed, it has been implemented in places. In Arizona, for example, statewide candidates have the option to run publicly funded campaigns due to an initiative that passed a few years ago. They must collect a certain number of $5 donations to qualify, then they get a set amount for the primary, and another set amount for the general election. If someone decides to go the private-funded route, whatever money they raise is matched dollar for dollar in the public fund.
There are a number of glaring problems with it:
Re: (Score:3, Interesting)
This always seems to come up.
You can always envision that your money went to the guy/gal/hermaphrodite that you
did like ( or that you hated least ). And if you cant get past that, then what
about the other guys "free speech"? Or is money and economic backing going to
continue to be the main input?
And I would propose that there be no "private route", as it seems that when private
Re:I hate to be negative... (Score:4, Insightful)
I think I explained it wrong. If you are privately funded and you raise $1000, all your publicly funded opponents get $1000 from the general fund, but you get nothing from the general fund.
The point is that no one wants to spend their money to fund candidates they don't agree with, so the only way it works at all is to fund it through taxes. I'm all for people having an equal opportunity to speak. I just don't think I should have to pay for it. There's a huge difference between equal opportunity and enforcing equality.
The trouble is, when you put this together with the rule about not spending any money outside the fund, what do you do when you want to use a web site that was developed before you became eligible for funding? That web site would be an "extra" expenditure. That's just one example of things that pop up when you actually put it into practice.
Re: (Score:2)
The point is that no one wants to spend their money to fund candidates they don't agree with, so the only way it works at all is to fund it through taxes. I'm all for people having an equal opportunity to speak. I just don't think I should have to pay for it. There's a huge difference between equal opportunity and enforcing equality.
Good! The point of public funding is to end the ridiculous fund raising arms race which does nothing but harm to political discourse. If they don't want to raise any money that will get matched by their opponent then don't and spend the money you've been allocated on something productive instead of expensive and content-free TV ads.
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:3, Informative)
Re: (Score:2)
in your scheme would be back channel communications of "it was me that
sent the check for $1020304.05, and here is the legislation that I want
enacted". Then, later, both the donor and the candidate are "no, we
never spoke about this". No notes to prove the communication happened,
no witnesses, no proof, no case, no court dates, no convictions. And
then, illegal means nothing. Just like the "there is no proof that the
lost emails in the RNC
Re: (Score:2)
by candidate. I dont see anything that stops a contributor from
claiming ( correctly or not ) that they donated to a candidate's campaign,
nor any natural check on negotiating deals beforehand ( "I'll donate
to your fund, here is what I want" ). Yes, it is mixed, but the
"wink wink, nudge nudge, say no more" factor is still there.
Putting it into the FEC does sound like a good idea, as it would put
a check attempting to make contributions illega
Re: (Score:2)
But I think that works at too much a cross purpose to making
it so that votes are what candidates respond to when legislating.
Anonymous contribution might well reduce the role money plays in
politics, but I dont think it will be enough. And, assuming
it did reduce the effect "enough", I would argue that corporations
( and to some extent wealthy individuals ) would sharply reduce
the contributions that they would make. After all, that *is*
why they are
Re: (Score:2)
Maybe they aren't corrupt personally, but if our system of government is such that the more lobbyists you hire and fancy dinners you pay for the more influence you have, then our overall system of government is very corrupt. If having lots of money gives you lots of sway over legislation and government matters, then the currently successful can exploit the system to create laws and policies tha
He's just widening his scope. (Score:5, Insightful)
One step beyond (Score:5, Insightful)
Without the ability to borrow/spend unlimited amounts of cash (8,9,10 trillion is essentially infinite as far as I'm concerned, or at least, it tends to infinity), politicians wouldn't be anything like as powerful and wouldn't be such obvious and attractive targets for big business.
There you go. Corruption, built into the very basis of our monetary system from the ground up. It took me several years to come to this conclusion, I don't really expect you to accept it.
Re:One step beyond (Score:5, Informative)
Re: (Score:2)
a friend who loan officer at a bank and he believes in the current system.
Well, yeah but then, he gets to loan
Re: (Score:2)
Now, money is a series of digital 0's and 1's.
Hmm. It's a commodity, just like oil or coffee. Once it was created all those thousands of years ago, it's nature has never changed despite the physical transformation over the years. As a commodity it's subject to exactly the same laws of supply and demand. Infinite supply (borrowing trillions) causes devaluation of the currency.
I agree that the monetary system needs to be changed. The existing system is particularly bad. For every dollar of money created, at least one dollar of debt is created. So it isn
Re: (Score:3, Insightful)
I did not sit through the whole video, but it's a well-known mechanism (like, there's a Wikipedia article [wikipedia.org] about it), not some closely guarded secret.
Re: (Score:2)
2: Very few people ever think about the nature of what money actually is.
3: Even if they do, they rarely suspect that money could work any other way, with different implications and consequences.
4: The bankers and politicians are perfectly happy with this state of affairs.
Re: (Score:3, Insightful)
So the colonists overthrew the government and established one that fit their ideals, allowing the rich to control their government by forming it themselves. Bear in mind that at the time the only people voting were rich white men.
Re: (Score:2)
"The bank hath benefit of interest on all moneys which it creates out of nothing." William Paterson, founder of the Bank of England in 1694, then a privately owned bank.
"Let me issue and control a nation's money and I care not who writes the laws." Mayer Amschel Rothschild (1744-1812), founder of the House of Rothschild.
"The few who understand the system will either be so interested in its profits or be so dependent upon its favours that there will be no opposition from that class, while on the other hand, the great body of people, mentally incapable of comprehending the tremendous advantage that capital derives from the system, will bear its burdens without complaint, and perhaps without even suspecting that the system is inimical to their interests." The Rothschild brothers of London writing to associates in New York, 1863.
"Banking was conceived in iniquity and was born in sin. The Bankers own the Earth. Take it away from them, but leave them the power to create deposits, and with the flick of a pen they will create enough deposits to buy it back again. However, take it away from them, and all the fortunes like mine will disappear, and they ought to disappear, for this world would be a happier and better world to live in. But if you wish to remain slaves of the Bankers and pay for the cost of your own slavery, let them continue to create deposits." Sir Josiah Stamp, President of the Bank of England in the 1920s, the second richest man in Britain.
"... our whole monetary system is dishonest, as it is debt-based... We did not vote for it. It grew upon us gradually but markedly since 1971 when the commodity-based system was abandoned." The Earl of Caithness, in a speech to the House of Lords, 1997.
The problem with the monetary system is that it has institutionalised the corrupt practices and the inequality. Now, it's built in to every dollar, every pound, every euro, every yen.
Re:He's just widening his scope. (Score:5, Insightful)
Myself for one. I think lobbying is very destructive in general, but it's never quite as cut-and-dried as "buying off" people. First of all, even with all the loopholes, it's very difficult for one donor to give enough money to a member of congress to severely sway them. I mean, these people are usually start out being comfortably well-off, even with the frequent pay cuts you get when you move from the private sphere to the public one.
Very few members of congress are going to let themselves be bought for a few thousand dollars. Just not worth it.
Also, there are a lot of people who are more attracted to politics because they value power over money. Not that it's any more noble a character trait, but for a lot of these people the power they wield is an end in itself. They like being able to call the shots, and a good number of them aren't going to trade that power for a little bit of money. If money was that important, a lot of them would have been better off staying in the private sector, where they would be making a hell of a lot more.
What happens with the lobbyists is that they're very, very good at their jobs. They're smart. They're friendly. They're likeable. They're charismatic. They can usually give their side of the story without any opposition. If a lobbyist comes into your office to talk about a subject you haven't really given much thought to, and lays a slick, professional presentation on you, cites a bunch of credible-sounding statistics, mentions the support of some industrial association, you're going to be naturally leaning towards their side.
Re:He's just widening his scope. (Score:5, Interesting)
Re: (Score:2)
The alternative is being voted out of power because you couldn't afford the TV ads to get in the voters' faces as much as your adversary. I believe Darth Vader would beat out Jesus Christ for office if he outspent him 10:1 on attack ads.
Yes, the electorate is broken. But we can't fix that. Public financing of elections would be the right way to fix this. Joe Biden even said in the debate that
ask Mary Bono (Score:3, Insightful)
Re: (Score:2)
the army? I hear they have great college tuition plans, and he'll even get a vacation to Iraq over summer. Tsk, tsk! Women just don't have any idea how to save money.
Re: (Score:2)
Myself for one. I think lobbying is very destructive in general, but it's never quite as cut-and-dried as "buying off" people. First of all, even with all the loopholes, it's very difficult for one donor to give enough money to a member of congress to severely sway them. I mean, these people are usually start out being comfortably well-off, even with the frequent pay cuts you get when you move from
Re: (Score:2)
The politician from Houston does not grow up in atmosphere hostile to Big Oil. The Senator from Kansas doesn't have be told take an interest in the market for corn.
The geek wastes his time in talk of bribery - while California puts Hollywood trained actors on the national political stage.
Steamboat Willie on the "Vintage Mickey" DVD is $14 at BestBuy.
Steamboat Willie in the original is one reel o
Such a straw man argument (Score:2)
Anybody who has done some research?
Ever since I started to do some research into this subject, I've noticed that this is a straw man argument that's brought up over and over again. And it's a straw man for a few reasons:
1. The United States has historically lagged behind the rest of the world in copyright terms. The Sonny Bono Act was brought into play to address this.
2. The European term of life
Re: (Score:2)
Just because you don't agree with it, it doesn't make it stupid. Frankly, as a writer myself, I can see a great deal of merit in having a legacy for my children and grandchildren - the family members I will know in life. Assuming everybody in my family lives to be around 90 (and at 30, I have a full set of grandparents still, with one who just celebrated his 90th birthday, so I have good genes for that), and I have chil
Re:He's just widening his scope. (Score:5, Informative)
Here's 50 "donations" to start with:D 000000128&ContribID=U0000000007&Display=ID [opensecrets.org]
http://www.opensecrets.org/orgs/topindivs.asp?ID=
More:p ?txtName=Walt+Disney+Co&txtUltOrg=y&txtCycle=2005& txtSort=name [opensecrets.org]
http://www.opensecrets.org/softmoney/softcomp2.as
http://www.opensecrets.org/ [opensecrets.org] is full of such records of "donations" made on behalf of Disney.
And that's just one website.
Now ask for something hard to find.
;)
Mr. P2im3 has already given you a list (Score:2)
Disney: Canidate A, do you support extending copyrights?
A. No, I think it's stupid!
Disney: Too Bad.
Disney: How about you, Canidate B?
B. Yes! I do!
Disney: Okay, B! Here's a big sack of money! Now go get elected!
B. Woohoo!
Disney: How about you, Mr. C?
Re: (Score:2)
Change of focus? Sorta. (Score:5, Insightful)
He's done a fantastic job and played a central role in promoting a movement toward enlightened legal treatment of intellectual and creative works. Coffee all around. I don't see him as abandoning this movement, just attacking the problems facing the movement at a deeper, more fundamental level.
Re: (Score:2)
I was thinking the same thing. To some approximation, the fight against excessive copyright and patent protection is a subset of the fight against corruption. But there is a veneer of rational seeming arguments surrounding ridiculously strong copyright and patent protection that make it a trickier fight in some ways because some of the proponents are actually honest. Honestly mistaken, but honest all the same.
Re:Change of focus? Sorta. (Score:4, Insightful)
Re:Change of focus? Sorta. (Score:5, Interesting)
It's strange, though, because he is now tackling a problem that is much bigger and harder to solve. Rather than just get one set of laws fixed (copyright laws), he is now hoping to change all the laws that affect governance. Yet, he is undoubtedly right that without fundamental changes in the way governance occurs, any "wins" in other domains (be it copyright law, privacy, etc.) will be tenuous and short-lived.
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2, Insightful)
Corruption is a big problem with more important effects than merely copyright law. If corruption were tackled properly it would result in far-reaching changes from law (including drug law, which is costing billions and imprisoning millions for victimless crime) to foreign policy.
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
The question I have to ask is, how come it is just this one man who seems to be almost alone in a world of lawyers working to nail down every single right to the freedom of ideas in our society? There are others, it's true, but Lessig seems to be up against some incredible odds.
I am sure he isn't alone, the FSF, EFF, and the whole open source community are fighting for the same things in different ways.
Bravo. (Score:4, Insightful)
Re: (Score:2)
Gore and public domain (Score:3, Insightful)
It does not help my impression of Gore either to get the Inconvinient DVD that says "share" this movie with your friends, while the movie starts with a $250,000 FBI threat against sharing the movie.
When they said "share", they meant "repurchase". Sales are more important than the message, I guess.
Re: (Score:3, Insightful)
Re: (Score:3, Insightful)
Re: (Score:2, Informative)
What does that have to do with Gore? As VP, his only legislative duty was to break ties in the Senate.
It does not help my impression of Gore either to get the Inconvinient DVD that says "share" this movie with your friends, while the movie starts with a $250,000 FBI threat against sharing the movie.
Did Gore insert that FBI notice? Was it his re
Re:Gore and public domain (Score:5, Insightful)
Clinton signed the three bad laws. Okay. This may come as a surprise, but Bill Clinton and Al Gore are different human beings. Our constitution doesn't give vice-presidents any right to veto things. Even if Clinton's actions somehow taint Gore, it's possible to admire someone for the good things they've done, even if they have serious flaws.
As for sharing Gore's movie, remember that "share" can mean things besides "distribute copies of." You can loan your friends your DVD perfectly legally. You can invite a few friends over and show them your copy of the DVD without breaking any laws.
As for why it's for profit, there are trade-offs whenever one wants to get a message out. The people who funded the movie probably to make a profit. In exchange the movie got widespread distribution and plenty of media attention. Having the movie available in theaters across the country may have gotten his message out to more people than making a less polished movie freely available would have. Maybe Gore made the wrong trade-off, but it's not an obvious decision.
Re: (Score:2)
Well, be fair -- maybe his experience with how the President and Vice-President act within White House administrations is limited to the current one.
Re: (Score:3, Interesting)
It does not help my impression of Gore either to get the Inconvinient DVD that says "share" this movie with your friends, while the movie starts with a $250,000 FBI threat against sharing the movie.
When they said "share", they meant "repurchase". Sales are more important than the message, I guess.
That is like forming a negative impression of Tobey Maguire because Stan Lee didn't get his cut of the Spiderman films. Gore was an actor and promoter of the film. He doesn't own it and has little say in how it was distributed.
Re:Gore and public domain (Score:4, Funny)
another relevant endeavor (Score:2)
LoB
Re: (Score:2)
Bravo! (Score:3, Insightful)
Best wishes, god speed, and I'll be watching and looking for opportunities to help.
You never know... (Score:3, Interesting)
Re: (Score:2)
Oh, I haven't. I also haven't forgotten that Microsoft was let off the hook by the Bush administration.
Re: (Score:2)
Anyway, thank you Lessig for all the work you've done so far.
Thanks for speaking out for me (Score:2)
We Slashdotters hope for the day that either Microsoft discontinues it's illegal activities and becomes a fair player in the free market or dies a miserable, hated death.
Much appreciated. In fact, The entire Slashdot Collective thanks you!
Corruption is inherent in the system (Score:4, Interesting)
I think we're too far gone, at this point, to fight corruption in our government.
Ten years isn't going to be enough. In ten years' time, all of us working together would hardly even make a dent in it. Take down one corrupt politician and there's an entire party's worth to take his or her place.
We could use a new system. Perhaps if we pushed more of the decisions to the people it would become too expensive to 'buy' support? Or perhaps we could ban parties names from anything printed by/endorsed by the government? Or perhaps merely instituting a 'removal-by-popular-constituant-vote' system would do...
I do not have an answer, but repairing the current system just doesn't seem like a good use of time and effort to me.
Re: (Score:2)
Bingo! If we could reign in government so that the decision making, tax collection, and spending where done more at a local or state level rather than at the federal level I think we'd be a lot better off.
Maybe we could craft up a document detailing what the federal government had control over, and then slap a little clause at the end to the effect of:
Re: (Score:2)
That used to be my opinion too, but it turns out that the American Founding Fathers were rather intelligent folk. The system they created is, to date, one of the best in the world. Changing the system
Re: (Score:2)
Unfortunately, you are misinformed. The main purpose of our dual-political system is to limit the opinions of the people. Our two parties stifle opinion by projecting the diversity of public opinion into a false dichotomy: democrat or republican.
As with Plato's Allegory of the Cave, we lose information when it's presented in this manner. Instead of electing our candidates based on issues of import
The wrong enemy (Score:3, Insightful)
"When the people find they can vote themselves money, that will herald the end of the republic." -- Benjamin Franklin (maybe)
Lessig is attacking the wrong enemy. I'm not saying that moneyed interest aren't often a problem -- but put all the laws and effects that the government passes for them on one side of the ledger. Now take all the money that is spent to influence the masses on the other: welfare, social security, health care, and god knows how many pork barrel projects at the local level (Alaskan bridge, anyone?). It's not even close.
I have met the enemy and he is YOU. The modern sense of entitlement is what's pulling us down.
(I will resist the urge to tie entitlement to the desire for all music for free)
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
You right libertarians consistently prove to me that yo
Re: (Score:2)
You right libertarians consistently prove to me that you have the morals of a two year old child.
First of all, I'm not a Libertarian. Your rant says more about your prejudices than about mine.
The point is not whether humans should help out other humans in need (of course we should), the point is how the government buys votes by bribing the populace, all the while sending money to worthless "make work" projects.
The fact that certain policies also destroy many good people by enslaving them into a cycl
Welfare, social security, health care (Score:3, Insightful)
Social security and welfare *benefit* society. Sure, there are those who take advantage of the system, but I can promise you, they are the minority. For most folks on welfare, it's a short-term thing, a stop-gap to fill in while they figure out their financial life since their ex-corporate masters outsourced their job to India or China.
As far
"fight against corruption" (Score:2)
The thing is... (Score:2)
The DMCA is made from the same poison that corruption is: the undue influence that money has on Congress. By and large, these are not geniuses, like Lessig. They're looking for reelection, and the content providers give generously to reelection bids -- and, they write the legislation.
One way (Score:3, Interesting)
Re: (Score:2)
I'm sorry, but this is simply wrongheaded. Indiscriminate removal of all of the old elements of a system is called revolution, and despite what Time magazine or CNN may have told you it does not occur at the ballot box (except in those rare cases where the very act of having a meaningful election is new, eg. South Africa or Russia, which are invariably a product of violence or the credible threat of viol
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
Ah, but there's another problem: Assuming that this strategy works, you'll be swapping congressman every 2 and 6 years. That makes it harder to track down the persons (biological or legal) causing the damage--you get to sort through disparate archives, ask more people for data, etc. It effectively decreases the accountability of any politician to the public. Why please your constituents when you're out next term anyway?
As far as the "permanent ruling class" is concerned: we were, in fact, supposed to have
election process (Score:2, Interesting)
1) publicly financed and spend-capped election
1.5) free equal TV air time for all legitimate candidate: at LEAST those who also get secret service protection.
2) make election a holiday, heck, we should even spend tax $$ to get people to the polls.
Wanna fix corruption? Fix the election.
Lobbying. It's called lobbying.... (Score:2)
Re:what about the good of the internet (Score:5, Interesting)
Re: (Score:2)
Members of the propertied class generally feel they have the most to lose from change. Freedom inevitably brings change.
Re: (Score:2)
One way of looking at this is thinking of the people who want to treat traffic specially as fighting a world in which they no longer control what applications their network is used for. For the most part, these are the current 'property owners'.
Currently the Internet (despite being huge) is not actually quite big enough to matter to them because they still control all uses of the network for the application they have traditionally provided which is voice connectivity and/or video content distribution. Bu
Re: (Score:2)
Re:Best of luck (Score:4, Insightful)
Removing completely, yes. But cutting it down by 95% in the US is easy. Just stop the complete abuse of political funding that goes on at present; this really isn't hard. Nowhere else in the first world are corporations allowed to buy politicians in the way that happens quite normally in the US. Eliminate that and you're just left with real corruption (politicians selling out for personal gain, rather than as a necessary part of getting elected). This happens everywhere of course, and I'm sure the US is no exception, but it's a fart in a jacuzzi compared to the current situation.
Personal opinion (this is thinking of the UK more than the US): public funding of political parties. A few million per annum out of general taxation is a tiny price to pay for the sanctity of the political process.
Re: (Score:2)
Now you may well say that Lessig faces one hell of an uphill struggle t