I'm always so happy to see Larry Lessig out and about, championing the fight against dirty money. I'd have voted for him in the Democratic primary, and I hope he somehow ends up on the Supreme Court.
It would be interesting if a politician could successfully use crowd source funding for campaigning or getting incentive to vote. Can you imagine the waves that seeing a political issue on site such "Kickstarter"?
As somebody already said, Bernie Sanders did, but it actually counted AGAINST him - being independent from big corp interests to many moderates it seemed Bernie was ultimately unelectable - that he was on a niche hipster ticket and pushing corporations away to the other camp, giving more money and ammunition to the Reps to be used against the Dems. You're America! Still the no. 1 capitalist country in the world! What would your identity be without pandering to the 0.1%?
+Da ve Bernie was also considered unable to "govern" (i.e., enact anything he advocated for). THAT was the most cynical piece of the 2016 election: even if he became POTUS, he'd be hamstrung ... no matter which party held power. The point was that Bernie's ideas couldn't make it past the lobbyists. Make no mistake, there is a REAL difference in quality and kind between GOP and dems for corporate influence. GOP would have rather killed themselves instead of voting for children's health program (CHIPs) and dems would never vote out medicare or social security. But the idea that Bernie COULDN'T enact his policy was a component of the 2016 dem primaries. Think on that. Think about the idea that - whether his ideas were tremendous or simply popular or even just good - some folks voted against him bc his "ideas" couldn't be pushed through a corrupt, money-sucking congress.
Ryan Viertel it's disgusting. I think we should have a country where each law is voted by the citizens, rather than by a group of elites. In the age of internet, a quick secured poll can easily be reached out to the nation for a vote on whether or not to pass a legislation.
Praernym well - i don't know about that. If we allow citizens to vote on this, then I think people will take the time to find out what a super PAC is. It's like Brexit. The top google search in UK on the eve of the vote was "what is the EU". If people take the time to learn, even if on the day of voting, then they are educated to vote on this. It's not rocket science after all...it takes less than 5 min of google reading to know superPAC exists only to serve the interest of the elites.
It's not that easy, though. People don't necessarily care even if they are permitted a direct vote on something. Brexit? Many people actually said afterwards that they checked the internet for what Brexit would mean AFTER they cast their ballot.. Also, represemtative government (i.e. Congress / Parliament) was invented precisely because it was seen as impossible for all the people to decide on every issue facing the country. Granted, Internet makes refernda a lot easier. But the thing is, many of the laws that need to be drafted are about pretty complex and complicated issues, yet by appealing to "common sense" or "gut feeling" people (and not too few of them either) can be convinced pretty easily of believing that there's a simple answer. Direct democracy without sufficient education may lead to demagogues pushing through legislation that might be destructive to the country and its people in the long term (e.g. banning immigration and propagating anti-Muslim/Arab rhetoric or even legislature may be sold as a way of "fighting the enemy" when in fact it might just give terrorist groups the very recruitment tools they were looking for all along; or take the economy - not everybody has the time and/or energy to get informed on how economic processes work which would essential in trying to make sensible decision on economic policy matters). I'm far from claiming that the current system works flawlessly but I also don't think that complete direct democracy is the golden answer
+Sarah Weiler your entire paragraph can be condensed into "populism is the plague of humanity", and rightly so! This narrow-minded "little England" or "little America" nationalist naval-gazing is like short-term traders, bent on making an apparent immediate personal profit at the detriment of long term collective development. But the answer isn't to EXCLUDE the shortsighted @holes, it is to combat the very root of populism and false fallacies by pointing them out with clear, concise information so the people can be more enlightened on the issue at hand! If somebody us shortsighted you don't prohibit them from walking to prevent their fall, you prescribe them glasses!
it would be more interesting to see a caps system on donations, lest say candidate A and B and C have an end cap of 12 million dollars. Corporations can only donate 4.5 million dollars to any one electorate, now that 4.5 million is a sum or total of all corporations donations, and the rest wold be a kickstarter type of fundraising and is set to a percentage system from all representative tax brackets. meaning over 500000 a year gets a small percentage then under 200000. and make voting a holiday weekend type of vibe were those who want to vote can and those who don't wont
You'd think any sensible country does, but alas, no matter the amount of legislation any conservative lobby of any country would inevitably find a way to circumvent the laws to find one loophole to legitimise their dumping of cash. And superpacs are a NEW thing! It means America isn't just not closing loopholes, you're actively making them bigger and legalising them!
Corporations shouldn't be able to spend a dime on electing a candidate. If an entity is not allowed to vote, why the hell should it be allowed to influence the vote?
If your corrupt and want a smaller government of which you may want to become the dictator of that government and it allows them to pocket tax dollars and election funds illegally. That’s my thought about what I’ve learned this past government situation. Am I right?
Sry to have a negative comment, but this interviewer needs to be more punctual- it was like he was in slow motion. You want as much as guests input as possible... This is an interesting topic though- I want to learn more about it. I just know that Planned Parenthood gave my home states governor over 2.5 million the past two election years for his re-election... How can an organization that gets federal funding be able to sway elections?? their argument is that such fed funding goes to services, and they use donations for for the election money.... I dont agree- it would be one in the same.
Wait, wait, wait...his solution is to give $50 to each voter? My question is why do we have to have money in politics at all? It's clear that it's been manipulated with money and lead to the kind of politics that we have now. So if the problem is money, why is the solution more money???? The definition of insanity is trying the same thing over and over and expecting different results...
No, what he's talking about is giving everyone a voucher so that they can only give fifty dollars. That way whether you have three hundred dollars or three hundred million dollars everyone can only donate the same amount
Kenoba Bridge View the link that i posted. It explains it pretty well. But in short, if you break any law, and keep on refusing to pay the "punishment" you will end up being killed. Long version. Do not keep your grass under 6 inches. You get a ticket. You do not pay the ticket You get more tickets. After some time a judge will say it is OK to put you in a cage. After a bit more time a person with a gun will come to your house. If you refuse to go with him to be put in a cage he will force you. If you fight back, by running, or by using the best tools to defend yourself, you will be shot. You can change that first line to almost anything, selling "illegal" cigs, pot, speeding, stealing a cookie, robbing someone at gun point, robbing a bank with just a note, insider trading, kidnapping.
I'm always so happy to see Larry Lessig out and about, championing the fight against dirty money. I'd have voted for him in the Democratic primary, and I hope he somehow ends up on the Supreme Court.
Dear Vox, The description of your RUclips videos should give the name and webpage of the person being interviewed.
this video should have more views.
It would be interesting if a politician could successfully use crowd source funding for campaigning or getting incentive to vote. Can you imagine the waves that seeing a political issue on site such "Kickstarter"?
That would make US politics truly democratic!
Bernie did.
As somebody already said, Bernie Sanders did, but it actually counted AGAINST him - being independent from big corp interests to many moderates it seemed Bernie was ultimately unelectable - that he was on a niche hipster ticket and pushing corporations away to the other camp, giving more money and ammunition to the Reps to be used against the Dems. You're America! Still the no. 1 capitalist country in the world! What would your identity be without pandering to the 0.1%?
+Da ve Bernie was also considered unable to "govern" (i.e., enact anything he advocated for). THAT was the most cynical piece of the 2016 election: even if he became POTUS, he'd be hamstrung ... no matter which party held power.
The point was that Bernie's ideas couldn't make it past the lobbyists.
Make no mistake, there is a REAL difference in quality and kind between GOP and dems for corporate influence. GOP would have rather killed themselves instead of voting for children's health program (CHIPs) and dems would never vote out medicare or social security.
But the idea that Bernie COULDN'T enact his policy was a component of the 2016 dem primaries. Think on that. Think about the idea that - whether his ideas were tremendous or simply popular or even just good - some folks voted against him bc his "ideas" couldn't be pushed through a corrupt, money-sucking congress.
Bernie, son
why is this legal if majority of Americans think it shouldn't be?
i thought we live in a democratic society.
Ryan Viertel it's disgusting. I think we should have a country where each law is voted by the citizens, rather than by a group of elites.
In the age of internet, a quick secured poll can easily be reached out to the nation for a vote on whether or not to pass a legislation.
its not a majority thinking its illegal its the majority of a minority that actually know what a super PAC is
Praernym
well - i don't know about that. If we allow citizens to vote on this, then I think people will take the time to find out what a super PAC is.
It's like Brexit. The top google search in UK on the eve of the vote was "what is the EU".
If people take the time to learn, even if on the day of voting, then they are educated to vote on this. It's not rocket science after all...it takes less than 5 min of google reading to know superPAC exists only to serve the interest of the elites.
It's not that easy, though. People don't necessarily care even if they are permitted a direct vote on something. Brexit? Many people actually said afterwards that they checked the internet for what Brexit would mean AFTER they cast their ballot..
Also, represemtative government (i.e. Congress / Parliament) was invented precisely because it was seen as impossible for all the people to decide on every issue facing the country. Granted, Internet makes refernda a lot easier. But the thing is, many of the laws that need to be drafted are about pretty complex and complicated issues, yet by appealing to "common sense" or "gut feeling" people (and not too few of them either) can be convinced pretty easily of believing that there's a simple answer. Direct democracy without sufficient education may lead to demagogues pushing through legislation that might be destructive to the country and its people in the long term (e.g. banning immigration and propagating anti-Muslim/Arab rhetoric or even legislature may be sold as a way of "fighting the enemy" when in fact it might just give terrorist groups the very recruitment tools they were looking for all along; or take the economy - not everybody has the time and/or energy to get informed on how economic processes work which would essential in trying to make sensible decision on economic policy matters). I'm far from claiming that the current system works flawlessly but I also don't think that complete direct democracy is the golden answer
+Sarah Weiler your entire paragraph can be condensed into "populism is the plague of humanity", and rightly so! This narrow-minded "little England" or "little America" nationalist naval-gazing is like short-term traders, bent on making an apparent immediate personal profit at the detriment of long term collective development. But the answer isn't to EXCLUDE the shortsighted @holes, it is to combat the very root of populism and false fallacies by pointing them out with clear, concise information so the people can be more enlightened on the issue at hand! If somebody us shortsighted you don't prohibit them from walking to prevent their fall, you prescribe them glasses!
Why isnt this more popular?
This is why Bernie Sanders needs to be elected.
This man could have been the next Lincoln. Oh well, there is still time.
Ironically, this foreshadows the rise of the "shouting" that gave birth to the Trump effect. Now all there is is shouting and at a deafening level...
Lessig for Associate Justice of the Supreme Court!
In answer to the question asked at around 5:00, the essence of the interviewee's answer seems to be "Don't hate the player-hate the game."
What is that computer in the background?
Super PAC's are by law not allowed to affiliate with any politician or campaign, so how can this worry be true?
can someone please fix the color balance so they dont look so pasty and yellow?
His voucher system still gives an unfair advantage to any incumbent over an unknown candidate.
Most pressing video ever featured on Vox. Says my id.
it would be more interesting to see a caps system on donations, lest say candidate A and B and C have an end cap of 12 million dollars. Corporations can only donate 4.5 million dollars to any one electorate, now that 4.5 million is a sum or total of all corporations donations, and the rest wold be a kickstarter type of fundraising and is set to a percentage system from all representative tax brackets. meaning over 500000 a year gets a small percentage then under 200000. and make voting a holiday weekend type of vibe were those who want to vote can and those who don't wont
You'd think any sensible country does, but alas, no matter the amount of legislation any conservative lobby of any country would inevitably find a way to circumvent the laws to find one loophole to legitimise their dumping of cash. And superpacs are a NEW thing! It means America isn't just not closing loopholes, you're actively making them bigger and legalising them!
Corporations shouldn't be able to spend a dime on electing a candidate. If an entity is not allowed to vote, why the hell should it be allowed to influence the vote?
Thought Provoking
Amazing
If your corrupt and want a smaller government of which you may want to become the dictator of that government and it allows them to pocket tax dollars and election funds illegally. That’s my thought about what I’ve learned this past government situation. Am I right?
People are listening now. They need to be educated now from honest people like this conversation here. Thanks🇺🇸
Sry to have a negative comment, but this interviewer needs to be more punctual- it was like he was in slow motion. You want as much as guests input as possible... This is an interesting topic though- I want to learn more about it. I just know that Planned Parenthood gave my home states governor over 2.5 million the past two election years for his re-election... How can an organization that gets federal funding be able to sway elections?? their argument is that such fed funding goes to services, and they use donations for for the election money.... I dont agree- it would be one in the same.
Wait, wait, wait...his solution is to give $50 to each voter? My question is why do we have to have money in politics at all? It's clear that it's been manipulated with money and lead to the kind of politics that we have now. So if the problem is money, why is the solution more money???? The definition of insanity is trying the same thing over and over and expecting different results...
No, what he's talking about is giving everyone a voucher so that they can only give fifty dollars. That way whether you have three hundred dollars or three hundred million dollars everyone can only donate the same amount
7 comments on a 11.000 views video? okay.
Sounds like this failed.
Remember, if you think something should be illegal, you are willing to cause death to that person.
That is the true end result to any law
What? Could you please explain to me your line of thinking?
Kenoba Bridge View the link that i posted. It explains it pretty well.
But in short, if you break any law, and keep on refusing to pay the "punishment" you will end up being killed.
Long version.
Do not keep your grass under 6 inches.
You get a ticket.
You do not pay the ticket
You get more tickets.
After some time a judge will say it is OK to put you in a cage.
After a bit more time a person with a gun will come to your house.
If you refuse to go with him to be put in a cage he will force you.
If you fight back, by running, or by using the best tools to defend yourself, you will be shot.
You can change that first line to almost anything, selling "illegal" cigs, pot, speeding, stealing a cookie, robbing someone at gun point, robbing a bank with just a note, insider trading, kidnapping.
@@MoonLiteNite remember, private property rights cause deaths. they are fictional constructs that are enforced using state sanctioned violence.
Why isnt this more popular?