This is why Lawrence Lessig left the fight against intellectual property craziness to focus on the underlying problem of corruption.
It's been years since I heard Lessig was shifting his focus to fight corruption, and recently SOPA got me curious about what he's been up to and if SOPA had brought him back out of "retirement". That led me to this article, "Why Is Lawrence Lessig MIA In The Great SOPA Piracy Debate?" http://m.paidcontent.org/article/419-why-is-lawrence-lessig-...
which led me to Lessig's response: http://lessig.tumblr.com/post/13119510676/me-mia-on-the-sopa...
which led me to his iniative to fight political corruption through campaign finance reform: http://www.rootstrikers.org/
I'm actually glad to see that Lessig isn't letting SOPA distract him from his fight against corruption which is the root of the problem. Stopping SOPA would be a huge win, but it would only be a battle win, and as long as we're losing the corruption war there are going to be many more SOPAs to fight in the future.
Lessig seems to be willing to limit our ability practice political speech through regulations and limitations, and to entrench the current political system by focus on government funded elections in which of course only major parties will be able to speak.
Also worth noting: the problem you describe (corrupting influences on the economy originating in Washington, as opposed to private interests capturing Washington) is something Lessig addressed in his recent appearance on Jon Stewart's program. There, he pointed out that these apparently divergent forms of corruption are entirely compatible, and that they actually share the same root, which is the obscene reliance of elected officials on a vanishingly small number of campaign donors.
Depending on the day of the week, these donors can find themselves initiating bribes, or being shaken down for bribes by officials wanting to increase their takes. The stink flows both ways. And it ensnares people who, left to their own devices, would have nothing to do with 'the trade' whatsoever.
Accordingly, Lessig is illuminating the entire economy of corruption, correctly observing that you cannot choose to attack one branch instead of another. Instead, you have to ignore all the branches, and go straight for the root. If any good comes from SOPA, it will be in generating a backlash strong enough to go after the root directly. The nerds, for what it's worth, are the people to lead this. Why? Because we are, by nature, systems thinkers. And this is a systemic problem of the very severest degree.
He's not attacking the root, he's attacking the branches. If government did not have the power to dole out favors no one would spend money trying to influence it. That, however , is incompatible with his worldview. He wants a strong federal government intervening a wide variety of issues - so that his will can be imposed upon others (I say his, because it would be odd if he was fighting so that someone could impose their will on him).
I completely agree with him on all the "corruption" claims, and on how they get compensated when they leave - there is no disagreement there. Though he does conflate 2 funding issues: 1. campaign funding 2. personal wealth. His attack is only focused on #1, whereas #2 also exists and is mentioned in his talk about former congressmen ending up @ K street or in large corporations. Nothing in his proposal would address problem #2, for a congressman can pass all sorts of bullshit laws and then go and work at Disney or Monsanto.
As for being systems thinkers, I agree - and in fact I think that's why pushing power from the federal to state makes a lot of sense. It increases stability, allows for experimentation and reduces the effects of corruption. Personally, I abhor politics because it's all about violence and force and not about consensus and compromise. Right now, we are stuck with a winner takes all system with government when everywhere else in our lives we are seeing an abundance of choice, the book Declaration of Independents has some good ideas on this topic, if you're interested http://www.amazon.com/Declaration-Independents-Libertarian-P...
Here's a franklin quote: "When the people find that they can vote themselves money, that will herald the end of the republic."
I think this is why few truly good people go in to politics.
http://www.oup.com/us/catalog/general/subject/Law/Intellectu...
For anyone who doesn't know, he's one of the foremost scholars of copyright law.
Video: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=G9qZZVqSQ
Petition page with the complete amendment: http://sanders.senate.gov/savingdemocracy
It sounds like it's too loosely written as it stands (see the WSJ article for a fearful analysis), but it's an interesting concept.
Imagine if people started donating to a 'SOPA Supporter Anti-Reelection Fund', where all donations go to targeting vulnerable SOPA supporters in the next election.
The message would be that this is a "No-Forvigeness" issue come election time; that 'The Internet is Bigger Than Democrat or Republican'; that this issue matters more to economic/moral future of the country than gay marriage, invading Iraq, or any number of divisive issues; people will donate money to such a fund even knowing some of it will be used against bad apples in their own parties; etc.
There's a ton of potential here, especially when vulnerable SOPA supporters are identified, which will put the political crosshairs on specific individuals. (Who are the most vulnerable supporters come reelection time? Newsworthiness is increased when reporters can put a face on the story).
If the Internet started building such an Anti-Reelection Fund, it might get newsworthy pretty fast.
If the power of bored people over a holiday break was put to work, such a fund could be very real in just a few days, and ready for its cover shot as a credible political threat (donated funds, name-and-shame publicity) by the time the committee reconvenes in January.
I'm just saying. I was surprised by how much political clout the Occupy movement ended up with, despite not having any single unified idea of what they want to change -- but, basically all they accomplished was to shape the message and shift the dialogue around the economic crisis a bit.
I'd be disappointed if the Internet couldn't accomplish something more concrete with SOPA.
Edit: also, if The Internets created such a fund, it might be politically easier for various internet companies or rich geeks to support it via matching funds.
Where do we start?
1. a giant counter of # of people who've donated to the fund (or signed 'the pledge', see below!),
2. a live twitter stream for the #NoForgivenessFund hashtag (but someone should come up with something better?)
3. a scrolling list of names of SOPA supporters, weighted to avoid giving much face time to 'safe' seats.
4. a giant 'Donate' banana -- but, heck, we all know that.
Now, actually collecting money for political purposes -- there, you may run into legal problems.
Technically, you need to be a PAC to do the things that the Fund would want to do. See: Stephen Colbert. It starts to get really serious really fast.
As a short-term measure, maybe make the website collect twitter/facebook accounts, and let people validate an email address, and ... hey, how's this for an idea?
A 'Pledge'.
Like some partisans have taken a pledge never to raise taxes, make a similar pro-Internet pledge that people can 'sign' with an email and twitter/fb/g+ account. Part of the pledge will be to vote against and donate to the opponents of anyone who aids and abets anti-internet legislation. The Pledge would be an opportunity for flowery writing, etc.
So you could have a giant list of people -- and later companies -- that would be signing this pledge, and would explicitly be telling you "send me an email with a link to a donate button when you've got something ready to go". Maybe they could specify how much they think they'll be able to donate. (And of course it could be used like The Pledge on politicians).
Probably makes sense to build the pledge site without waiting for a PAC.
Thoughts? Heh, man this is fun to think about ... I'm going to have to cut myself off sometime soon. Must... not... waste time on politics!
I'd start by asking Redditors how they manage their charity drives, and HNers if there are any Fundable.com replacements that work well.
I won't do any of this; I'm expressly non-political. I just think there's an opportunity here for someone who wants to make a mark on the system.
If each Internet user donated just 1 dollar to this fund in the US, we'd bury SOPA and its progeny forever.
I'm just thinking about the short-term message, though.
When I read "Internet Freedom" I'm already half-asleep, with visions of old hippies and the EFF dancing in my head.
But the 'No-Forgiveness Fund', the 'Punish SOPA Supporters Fund' or anything negative that directly references both SOPA and reelection funding, makes my ears perk up and may make reporters take note, too.
After all, people are getting a little tired of warmed-over Rick Perry punching bag stories. There's room for a disruptive, twitter-friendly new issue.
You realize that what we're describing is basically crowd-sourcing lobbyists. :) That tickles me pink.
If someone raises money to lobby the congress against SOPA, I'll contribute, but just to show that it won't work.
Way to stick to your guns, Jason.
I do agree in part with him though. Google, Facebook, et al. have been too quiet. Anti-SOPA propaganda should be somewhere highly visable on their websites. They need to at least spread the word about it.
And then requesting that those sites be taken down. Let loose 4chan and the absurdity of the whole thing will become clear.
However, since AFAIK most of the bill only targets foreign websites, you can't go after Facebook or YouTube. You could wait until someone uploads a torrent of your material to ThePirateBay, however...
I don't know from where the expression "fighting fire with fire" came from, it probably applies to war or something, but in such a case the fire is only a side-effect of the enemy dropping freaking bombs on you. And any firefighter will tell you that fire is fought with water and fighting it with fire is just plain dumb.
The road to hell is paved with good intentions, btw. I'm sure that some of the pro-SOPA companies have legitimate reasons for wanting extra protections. Dangerous counterfeits, like drugs, is one legitimate reason. And because they are businesses, they don't give a shit about human rights like free speech. But what company does care enough to put the interests of their shareholders on a second place? Nobody. Any solution that doesn't give power to the small players / individuals is NOT a solution, only a short-term victory that only fixes a symptom and that will end badly.
The author here forgets something - money from lobbying is only good for one thing - buying votes. This works out great, because the masses of people are usually ignorant and don't know shit about the details of such legislation. The only thing they'll hear is how SOPA saves their jobs. They'll also receive a pen, a teeshirt, a free drink and the vote is guaranteed.
Which is why the ultimate weapon against SOPA is raising awareness to the point of getting individuals to do something about it.
If I recall correctly (and wikipedia seems to back me up), it comes from creating firebreaks (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Firebreak ) via controlled burns.
he just happen to run a large black market import operation in communist east europe.
[1] http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Texass_21st_congressional_distr...
I hate to be harsh, but Lamar is in office until he dies. I'd focus on congressmen in swing districts.
And when you think about it, it doesn't make sense to enrich themselves so blatantly. People go to jail that way. Voters don't like politicians transparently bought and paid for.
And "campaign contributions" are _peanuts_ against the trillions sluicing every year through the federal fisc. Look at the money these guys make trading stock, in their "retirement" salaries as consultants and lobbyists, heads of foundations and executives in corporations with business before the government. Even if they're corrupt, they wouldn't be _stupid_ corrupt.
So politicians use campaign contributions to get re-elected. It isn't always above board, it's often employment of consultants and advisors whose chief. If you're sitting in a safe seat, your concern is your primary, and your real rivals are people of your own party below you. But they also help you win the general, by getting your name out there and shaping perceptions of you.
And that's the problem buying a corrupt Congressman. Let him want the money, he still must balance the image problem of taking the money. They can take the money at the margins. But after a point they can't take anymore without hurting themselves more than they help.
So how can the movie biz spend so much on this? The issue is marginal to the real drivers of the pols' incumbency, so they can afford to take more of the money on this one. And the showbiz lobbyists, who've been doing this a _very_ long time, know this, and got there first. It shouldn't surprise me to learn that money has done here as much as it could possibly do.
I don't think SOPA is inevitable. But it won't be stopped by imagining that politicians are simply stupid greedy.
I know I'm quoting a TV series (24, Jack Bauer), but I hope HN will evaluate the following dispassionately (irrespective of what they think of the source of the quote): "When you cross that line, it always starts off with a small step. Before you know it, you're running as fast as you can in the wrong direction just to justify why you started in the first place. These laws were written by much smarter men than me. And in the end, I know that these laws have to be more important than....... "
I'm sure many of you will think my post reeks of naivete but I'd rather be "naive" than lose hope and give in to the shady tactics.
Once we start taking the easy way out, we lose the sense of urgency and the passion to actually solve the problem. When next such bill comes, everyone will lay back and watch someone with big pockets come in and save the day. Things wil never change that way.
What's going to happen next time a piece of legislation turns up that we don't like? Should we just continue to pay off congress?
Once legislatures know there is a wealthy, well-organized group that will pay to stop something, they can actually create new proposed legislation simply to shake out a fresh round of 'protect me' contributions from affected interests. In California, these are traditionally called "juice bills":
http://www.doubletongued.org/index.php/citations/juice_bill_...
Just because thepiratebay.org exists doesn't mean that the sole use for it is piracy (although copyright infringement is obviously it's first usage). One can go to the pirate bay to see which TV shows are popular, judge whether you would like to watch them based on the popularity, and then go and buy the material from a reputable source.
Everyone who votes for politicians that promise to increase Washington's power needs to realize that they're also voting to increase the influence of money in politics.
If it passes it seems like the unique power this community has is technical expertise. As some have already been doing, we should be talking about solutions that allow society to bypass SOPA (hopefully without anyone getting sent to Guantanamo).
The media cartels are spending millions purchasing heinous oppressive legislation. Google and co can and should do better than a strongly-worded letter. (Read: can and should be spending more money than the media cartels to buy laws that favor their bottom line, and thus indirectly the internet in general.)
Instead, I believe the approach to GoDaddy is a better example: that bad policy will hurt politicians’ ability to maintain support.
The Internet, and thus the industry, has enormous reach with voters (and lobbyers like GoDaddy). Swaying the support system is our best bet, and much more honest.
In '08, my wife and I sent a decent chunk of change to his campaign. I just wrote them that if he signs SOPA he loses our vote an our support.
At least it's something...
Sorry, but I guess being an "aggressive observer of politics" isn't a valid qualification for dispensing political advice.
