I'm glad he's bringing up campaign reform, especially since Lawrence Lessig's campaign went absolutely nowhere. Odds are still that by the general election this will all be forgotten since my guess is it will be Clinton vs. Rubio and neither will want to bring it up.

thanks mate!
you check out my lawrence lessig post?
it is a much watch:
http://videosift.com/video/lawrence-lessig-2016-will-have-two-elections-TED-talk

More than reading this article, I point you towards the commentary on this article which reads:

"This is good, but the problem with reformers who do not want to totally abolish patent and copyright is that their arguments basically amount to "the law has gone too far" (people like Khanna, Tom Bell, Alex Tabarrok, Jerry Brito, Cory Doctorow, Public Knowledge, the EFF, Lawrence Lessig, and so on). That requires an empirical claim as dubious as those of advocates of the current IP regime. The only principled case for IP reform is one that also makes the case for IP abolition."

This, although not specifically stated, this comment demonstrates a preference for rigor when it comes to justifications for any position on any issue. Rationalism allows you take a consistent position based on unchanging principles. Hermeneutics as well as other modes that deal with all issues as a matter of "preference" or bias can seem rather arbitrary and harder to defend through rational argumentation.

*related=http://videosift.com/video/lawrence-lessig-we-the-people-the-republic-we-must-reclaim

lawrence lessig-we the people the republic we must reclaim has been added as a related post - related requested by Grimm.

There's a Lawrence Lessig talk that is in line with some of the ideas presented here.

http://videosift.com/video/lawrence-lessig-we-the-people-the-republic-we-must-reclaim

personally, I appreciate Lawrence Lessig's more nuanced understanding of the Citizen's United ruling.

You're missing the point of this video. He never mentioned Democrats or Republicans. Reich, while he was Labor Secretary under Clinton, is currently part of Common Cause. As it slogan says, Holding Power Accountable. Similar to Lawrence Lessig and Change Congress / RootStrikers, they want to lessen the corporate influence on politics to bring it back to a government for the people. Reich is pointing out the flaws in legally allowing companies like Bain Capital to do what they do and profit excessively from it.
>> ^Winstonfield_Pennypacker:

All you really need to know is that its a Robert Reich video to know to throw it in the trash where it belongs. It is such a dumbed down, simplistic 'unnuanced' (to use a leftist term) interpretation. Aw - and he even uses cartoons.
I see a lot of pontification, and moralizing, and oh-so-much self-righteous indignation. This kind of business practice is perfectly legal, and it is engaged in by Democrats and liberals all the time, but somehow only Romney is to blame of course. :eyeroll: Typical. As usual, its an election year hit piece used to angry up the blood of the ignorant and the stupid.
You guys act like firing people is some sort of horrible thing that should never never never be done. I know leftists are blindingly ignorant and uninformed of how things are in the "real world" rather than thier fevered imaginations... But companies have to fire people all the time. In fact, if they don't fire people then they become bloated, cumbered, over-saturated dinosaurs that get annihilated by thier competitors. I notice that even the moronic Robert Reich freely admits that the process makes the business work better and more profitable. No one likes to be fired, but as the years go buy companies build up headcount, and as time goes on there are jobs that become obsolete, tasks that are redundant, and processes that are inefficient. Tightening the screws is healthy. It is how companies survive and thrive.
I myself was a casualty of a "downsizing" a few years ago. It happens. It isn't the end of the world. You brush up your resume, get out and hustle, and find a new job. Only in the tortured, idiotic mindset of a liberals does it make any sense that all jobs should be permenant and unending. Grow up people.

yeah, we really need to separate the money from politics.
not just reversing citizens united, but making fundamental changes to the election system...
a reasonable taxpayer funded campaigns with limited duration would ultimately cost a lot less than what we're currently paying at the other end.

when we have separated money from politics, only then the meaningful policy changes are possible.
the way it is now, it's almost impossible to beat the lobbies on any issue.

Lawrence Lessig's talk on campaign finance reform:
http://fora.tv/2012/01/17/How_Money_Corrupts_Congress_and_a_Plan_to_Stop_It

found a shorter version on sift here =)
http://videosift.com/video/Laurence-Lessigs-New-Lecture-On-Money-In-Politics

Um, you do realize the Patriot Act reduced restrictions on the use of power right @GeeSussFreeK ? A patriot act on the rich would allow them greater flexibility in how they continue to drain the economy and environment of whatever remains.

Also, using the word "attack" when talking about the rich is simple rhetoric. Rational policy that redistributes some of the wealth (as one example) is not 'attacking' - it is something that would benefit everyone.

What sort of campaign finance reform would you support btw? Do you like Lawrence Lessig (and others) idea of publicly financed elections via a constitutional convention?

http://www.democracynow.org/2012/1/4/as_states_take_on_citizens_united

And you would agree that we the people have created this lose-lose, toxic atmosphere?

>> ^dystopianfuturetoday:

Obama and Paul are both good guys. I give them both the benefit of the doubt that they'd like to kick some ass in Washington, but it's not possible with the way our elections are structured. In order to get elected, you not only need big business bucks, but you also need to reassure big business that their power will not be challenged, lest they tear you apart in the media. This creates an election to election cycle of dependency that nullifies not only the voice of the people, but also the vision of the politician.
For Ron Paul to get elected, he would need both the financial and moral support of multinational corporations, which leaves his supporters with 2 possible outcomes: a principled loser or a neutered winner.
Lessig talks about this cycle of dependency in the latter half of this video: http://videosift.com/video/Lawrence-Lessig-Your-Broadband
-Milked-For-Profit-Not-Speed
Until we sort out our campaign finance system, we will always have subservient leaders.

Obama and Paul are both good guys. I give them both the benefit of the doubt that they'd like to kick some ass in Washington, but it's not possible with the way our elections are structured. In order to get elected, you not only need big business bucks, but you also need to reassure big business that their power will not be challenged, lest they tear you apart in the media. This creates an election to election cycle of dependency that nullifies not only the voice of the people, but also the vision of the politician.

For Ron Paul to get elected, he would need both the financial and moral support of multinational corporations, which leaves his supporters with 2 possible outcomes: a principled loser or a neutered winner.

Lessig talks about this cycle of dependency in the latter half of this video: http://videosift.com/video/Lawrence-Lessig-Your-Broadband-Milked-For-Profit-Not-Speed

Until we sort out our campaign finance system, we will always have subservient leaders.

thank you very much!
In reply to this comment by geo321:
*quality

Tags for this video have been changed from 'Lawrence Lessig' to 'Lawrence Lessig, taken 4 granted' - edited by MarineGunrock

Related: Larry's keynotes at the e-G8 summit this week.