The idea that the system is broken and needs to be fixed is by no means a new or novel one. Novelty arises in all the ways it could be fixed or should be fixed. To this end one in particular stands out as a plausible, albeit optimistic, way of changing things while still keeping the basic framework intact. Lawrence Lessig is the face of this and similar movements in The New Hampshire Rebellion which endeavors, in a nutshell, to use the loopholes and lack of campaign finance regulation to raise enough money to elect people who will ultimately get rid of those problems thus allowing future congressmen to be a truer representation of the people and therefore willing to pass laws that will address all of the other woes America has. In principle this seems to be a very accurate representation as to the root cause of our social ailments. At the moment, Representatives and Senators both are far richer than their constituency. They are also allowed to accept enormous sums of money from special interest groups which undoubtedly sways their vote on a great many things. This makes the run for Congress far less about platforms and issues and far more about who can pay enough to get their image out there favourably. All of these things are very true and in addressing the central issue of cash flow, the NHR would seem to have nailed it on the head.
Now I am by no means belittling Lawrence Lessig nor am I belittling his intelligence (he is nowhere near a stupid man and has many accomplishments to prove this). I do find fault though with his project in this, he has not accounted for the issues that allow the system to function this way to start with or at least has not underscored their importance. A little thought experiment can help illustrate one of the issues. Let us say that the NHR raises a sufficient amount of money to accomplish their goal (presumably electing at least 51% of both House and Senate and the President or 2/3 of both Houses without the President who are sympathetic to his cause and willing to actually implement it), and let’s say that the money is distributed to the individual candidates and said money is spent on advertising, campaigning, debating, and the whole lot. Then let us think about election day bearing in mind the platform has been campaign finance reform and apply the trends of the last several elections in regards to turnout. A problem should immediately come to mind, i.e. even spending as much or more than the other candidates the actual turnout is still not representative of even half of what the nation wants. Even if it were, it does not represent those who are almost perpetually forbidden to vote (the felons, illegal immigrants, legal immigrants in some places, even just minorities in some communities where they are “discouraged” from voting, etc.). It belies a very powerful idea that no amount of reform can change, i.e. we do not have “government by consent of the governed,” nor can we as long as we remain bound in our own chains and bound again by the immense effort put forth to keep us distracted from those chains.
Voter turnout aside (for that is within the change Lessig proposes) it is exceptionally optimistic to think the wealthy and powerful would stand by and simply let their gravy train be derailed. It is also optimistic to think that by uniting people under one flag that the other issues would be solved. After all, special interest groups do have a role to play in helping to protect the rights of those not able to get into the halls of Congress, they have simply gotten out of hand in their available power. Who is to say that by reforming Congress that it will not need reforming quickly again? After all, the source of power does not change, and even a Congress of this type can not strip money of its power; only the Fed (non-elected) could conceivably do that on any degree.
All this said, Lessig is a brilliant man and his ideas deserve merit, even this one. The issue of campaign finance reform is a vital one, and one that should have been reviewed long ago. It is simply too optimistic to think that the broken system can be fixed with the broken system. It is like hammering a nail in with a nail. Perhaps at one time if this issue had been addressed in this manner and if the people of America still had the time to wait for this change to happen would this be a realistic goal. The simple fact of the matter is that the system has given itself over to despotism and additional delays will only cause more unnecessary suffering. Now is the time for action, and Lessig is a valuable asset to that action, but the current plan as it stands simply won’t work. Something a little more drastic is required.
The Valeyard 