SUBSCRIBE TO OUR FREE NEWSLETTER
Daily news & progressive opinion—funded by the people, not the corporations—delivered straight to your inbox.
5
#000000
#FFFFFF
5
#000000
#FFFFFF
lawrence lessig
US Appeals Court Blocks Maine's Voter-Approved Ban on Overseas Corporate Money in Elections
"Our elections should belong to us, not to corporations owned or influenced by foreign governments whose interests may not align with our own," said the head of the committee behind the measure.
Aug 11, 2025
The Associated Press reported Monday that a federal appeals court recently blocked Maine from enforcing a ban on foreign interference in elections that the state's voters passed in 2023.
After Hydro-Quebec spent millions of dollars on a referendum, 86% of Mainers voted for Question 2, which would block foreign governments and companies with 5% or more foreign government ownership from donating to state referendums.
Then, the Maine Association of Broadcasters, Maine Press Association, Central Maine Power, and Versant Power sued to block the ballot initiative. According to the AP, last month, the 1st U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals in Boston affirmed a lower-court ruling that the measure likely violates the First Amendment to the federal Constitution.
Judge Lara Montecalvo wrote that "the prohibition is overly broad, silencing U.S. corporations based on the mere possibility that foreign shareholders might try to influence its decisions on political speech, even where those foreign shareholders may be passive owners that exercise no influence or control over the corporation's political spending."
As the AP detailed:
The matter was sent back to the lower court, where it will proceed, and there has been no substantive movement on it in recent weeks, said Danna Hayes, a spokesperson for the Maine attorney general's office, on Monday. The law is on the state's books, but the state cannot enforce it while legal challenges are still pending, Hayes said.
Just months before voters approved Question 2, Democratic Gov. Janet Mills vetoed the ban, citing fears that it could silence "legitimate voices, including Maine-based businesses." She previously vetoed a similar measure in 2021.
Still, supporters of the ballot initiative continue to fight for it. Rick Bennett, chair of Protect Maine Elections, the committee formed to support Question 2, said in a statement that "Mainers spoke with one voice: Our elections should belong to us, not to corporations owned or influenced by foreign governments whose interests may not align with our own."
A year after Maine voters approved that foreign election interference law, they also overwhelmingly backed a ballot measure to restrict super political action committees (PACs). U.S. Magistrate Judge Karen Frink Wolf blocked that measure, Question 1, last month.
"We think ultimately the court of appeals is going to reverse this decision because it's grounded in a misunderstanding of what the Supreme Court has said," Lawrence Lessig, a Harvard professor and founder of the nonprofit Equal Citizens that helped put Question 1 on the ballot, told News Center Maine in July. "We are exhausted, all of us, especially people in Maine, with the enormous influence money has in our politics, and we want to do something about it."
Keep ReadingShow Less
In Tiny State of Maine, a Big Election Day Win Against Dark Money in Politics
"Our greatest hope is to restore people's faith in our democracy and increase participation across the board," said the chair of the campaign behind the measure likely bound for the U.S. Supreme Court.
Nov 06, 2024
As billionaire-backed Republicans dominated U.S. elections on Tuesday, voters in Maine—among the top 10 states in terms of smallest populations—overwhelmingly approved a ballot measure to limit political spending, an initiative that could reach the country's top court.
Maine Question 1 targets super political action committees (PACs), dark money groups that, for the most part, are barred from directly contributing to or coordinating with a candidate but can raise and spend unlimited amounts of funds.
Question 1 asked Mainers, "Do you want to set a $5,000 limit for giving to political action committees that spend money independently to support or defeat candidates for office?"
WMTW reported earlier this year that "the $5,000 contributions cap would only apply to state races, not United States House or Senate races."
As of Wednesday afternoon, the measure had passed 531,573 to 186,707, or 74% to 26%, with 89% of the estimated vote reported, according to The New York Times.
"When the Supreme Court affirms what Maine voters have done, it could end super PACs everywhere."
"We're grateful to the Maine people for once again leading the way to help fix our broken political system," said Cara McCormick, chair of Maine Citizens to End Super PACs, which collected signatures to get the citizen-initiated measure on the ballot.
"The Maine people deserve a system that is not only free from corruption, but also free from the appearance of corruption," McCormick added. "Our greatest hope is to restore people's faith in our democracy and increase participation across the board."
The campaign highlighted that "some of America's leading constitutional law experts—Laurence Tribe, Lawrence Lessig, Neal Katyal, Al Alschuler, and others—have argued that Question 1 is the most immediate pathway to ending super PACs, the biggest source of dark money in elections."
Welcoming the measure's passage, Lessig declared Wednesday that "this is a great gift from Maine to democracy in America."
"We expect this initiative will be challenged," he explained. "But when the Supreme Court affirms what Maine voters have done, it could end super PACs everywhere."
As Maine Morning Star detailed Wednesday:
Since Buckley v. Valeo in 1976, the Supreme Court has allowed contributions to be regulated when there is a risk of "quid pro quo" corruption, essentially a favor for a favor. In the case of elections, if there is a risk someone could be making a donation to a candidate in exchange for a favor, only then can Congress regulate that contribution. In 2010, the Supreme Court extended this reasoning to corporations and unions in Citizens United v. Federal Election Campaign Act.
Three months later, in SpeechNow.org v. FEC, the U.S. Court of Appeals for the District of Columbia Circuit upheld that contributions to groups making independent expenditures can't corrupt or create the appearance of corruption. That decision essentially created the "super PAC," which can receive unlimited contributions but can’t contribute directly to candidates. Other lower federal and state courts followed suit, and the ruling was never reviewed by the Supreme Court.
The editorial boards of both the Bangor Daily News and Portland Press Herald backed the ballot measure, with the latter writing last month that "ours would be the first state in the nation since the Supreme Court's Citizens United ruling in 2010 to move to limit contributions to PACs that can make independent expenditures."
"We believe that political spending has spiraled out of control, in many cases, and that the absence of any limit on PACs is inappropriate and leaves America's system of campaigning and voting vulnerable to the whims of bad actors," the board argued. "If Maine can play a leading role in bringing some order and fairness to political spending nationally, we should seize the chance."
Keep ReadingShow Less
Majority of US Voters Across Political Spectrum Back Landmark Pro-Democracy Reform Bill: Poll
One prominent campaign finance expert called the For the People Act "an incredibly important piece of comprehensive democracy reform."
Jan 21, 2021
After decades of erosion by corporate and plutocratic interests and the battering ram that was the Donald Trump presidency, a new poll Friday suggests the democratic ideals enshrined in the landmark For the People Act enjoy broad support across the political spectrum.
"The most important parts give candidates a realistic chance to fund campaigns with small contributions only. That could liberate Congress from special interest funding."
--Lawrence Lessig,
Harvard Law School
Originally passed by the House of Representatives in 2019 but torpedoed by the Republican-controlled Senate, the For the People Act (pdf) would expand voting rights including for former felons, curtail partisan gerrymandering, strengthen ethics rules, limit money in politics and implement the DISCLOSE Act, and make Washington, D.C. a state--among other reforms.
The new survey, conducted by the left-leaning think tank Data for Progress and the advocacy group Equal Citizens, found a majority of self-described Democrats, Republicans, and independents support the For the People Act. Respondents were given the following information:
The For the People Act has been introduced in Congress. Supporters of the bill say it would limit the influence of big money in politics by empowering small donors, make voting easier and more secure, end gerrymandering, and give the public more information about who is lobbying our government. Opponents say it would be an overreach by the federal government and that states should control their own elections. Do you support or oppose the For The People Act?
Two-thirds, or 67%, of respondents answered affirmatively, including 77% of Democratic voters, 56% of Republicans, and 68% of independents. More than one-third (35%) of Democratic voters and 25% of Republicans "strongly support" the bill, while only 4% of Democrats and 11% of Republicans said they "strongly oppose" it.
The original For the People Act was written by the late Rep. John Lewis (D-Ga.) and Rep. John Sarbanes (D-Md.). Senate Majority Leader Chuck Schumer (D-N.Y.), Sen. Amy Klobuchar (D-Minn.), and Sen. Jeff Merkley (D-Ore.) said it will be the very first bill they introduce in the current congressional session.
"From a violent insurrection at the Capitol to the countless attempts to silence the vote of millions of Americans, attacks on our democracy have come in many forms," said Schumer on Tuesday. "Senate Democrats are committed to advancing real solutions and fighting to uphold the core tenets of our constitution, which is why we are announcing today that the first bill of the new Congress will be the For the People Act."
Despite controlling both chambers of Congress, based on current rules at least 10 Senate Republicans will need to support holding a vote for the bill in order to avoid a filibuster. A flood of progressive voices and groups, including Justice Democrats and the Sunrise Movement, have recently urged Senate Democrats to eliminate the filibuster, which could be accomplished by a simple majority vote.
Lawrence Lessig, a professor at Harvard Law School and expert on campaign finance, calls the For the People Act "an incredibly important piece of comprehensive democracy reform."
"In my view, the most important parts give candidates a realistic chance to fund campaigns with small contributions only," Lessig told OpenSecrets. "That could liberate Congress from special interest funding."
In addition to broad popular support, the For the People Act is backed by some 180 progressive groups who have formed the Declaration for American Democracy coalition.
Members of the coalition include: the American Federation of Teachers, CodePink, Color of Change, Common Cause, Demand Progress, Greenpeace, Indivisible, the League of Conservation Voters, March for Our Lives, Planned Parenthood Action Fund, Progressive Democrats of America, Public Citizen, the Service Employees International Union, and the Southern Poverty Law Center.
Keep ReadingShow Less
Electoral College Revolt Growing Into 'Powerful Show of Force'
Lawrence Lessig says 20 Republican electors are considering a vote against Trump on December 19
Dec 14, 2016
With the Electoral College vote less than a week away, Harvard University constitutional law professor Lawrence Lessig says 20 Republican members are considering voting against Donald Trump--more than half the number needed to potentially block the real estate mogul's election.
The 538 delegates to the Electoral College will gather at state capitols on Monday, December 19 to cast their votes for president. Ahead of that day, Lessig's Electors Trust group "has been offering pro bono legal counsel to Republican presidential electors considering ditching Trump and has been acting as a clearinghouse for electors to privately communicate their intentions," Politico explains. Lessig further outlined his arguments for doing so in an op-ed posted Tuesday at Medium.
He said Tuesday: "Obviously, whether an elector ultimately votes his or her conscience will depend in part upon whether there are enough doing the same. We now believe there are more than half the number needed to change the result seriously considering making that vote."
That claim "contradict[s] the assertions of Republican National Committee sources who report that a GOP whip operation intended to ensure Republican electors remain loyal to Trump found only one elector--Chris Suprun of Texas--would defy Trump," Politico pointed out.
But that could be because, as Salon reports, "Trump's campaign is pressuring Republican electors into voting for them under 'threats of political reprisal.'"
Citing an anonymous member of the Electoral College, the website writes:
"We have gotten reports from multiple people," the elector said, "that the Donald Trump campaign is putting pressure on Republican electors to vote for him based on...future political outcomes based on whether they vote for Donald Trump or not."
The elector emphasized that these reports had come straight from the Republican electors themselves, with the threats steering clear of violence but instead focusing on "career pressure."
"It's all political, basically," the elector said. "If Trump becomes the president, he's going to be able to put pressure on the state parties and they won't be involved anymore."
Furthermore, The Hill notes, "even if the rogue electors achieve their aims, they would only succeed in sending the election to a Republican-majority House, which would almost certainly certify Trump's victory."
Still, Margaret Hartmann wrote at New York magazine on Wednesday, "denying Trump the presidency isn't the movement's only goal."
"Denying Trump his 306 electoral votes could be important symbolically," she argued, "as it would undercut Trump's claim that he secured a mandate and serve as a show of strength from his opponents."
She pointed to a letter sent last week from the Progressive Change Campaign Committee (PCCC) to its members, which explained why the group "has decided to put major resources into the Electoral College protests scheduled on Dec. 19."
"[W]e're going to make these protests a powerful show of force," the letter read. "News coverage of these protests will increase public awareness of the fact that Trump lost the popular vote by 2.5 million votes--helping to blunt his claim of a 'mandate' and harden the spine of Democrats to fight."
The PCCC continued:
We go into this with sober expectations. Barring an extraordinary event, the Electoral College will likely elect Donald Trump as president. However, we can achieve two concrete things with these protests even if Trump wins the vote.
First, by generating media attention for the idea that Electors should support the popular vote winner, we can make it a source of mockery when Trump claims a "mandate" for an authoritarian, anti-worker, right-wing agenda. And when establishment Republicans in Congress claim a "mandate" to ram trillions of dollars of corporate giveaways through Congress.
Second, these events will force the media to report that Trump's razor-thin victories in battleground states were made possible in part by massive voter suppression. 2016 was the first general election without the full protection of the Voting Rights Act. Over 800 polling places were closed. Early voting was cut. Restrictive voter ID laws were in effect. Hundreds of thousands of voters--disproportionately people of color--were purged from the voter rolls.
"Denying Trump 270 electoral votes...would be jarring," Hartmann wrote at New York. "At the very least it would spark a more serious and sustained effort to clarify whether the Electoral College exists to rubber-stamp the election outcome or give Americans one last chance to keep an unfit candidate from assuming the presidency."
Meanwhile, Politico reports that more than 50 Democratic electors are now asking for an intelligence briefing on claims Russia interfered with the U.S. elections.
Keep ReadingShow Less
Lawrence Lessig, Champion of Electoral Reform, Drops Bid for President
'I was just shut out,' the Harvard professor said, after new Democratic Party rules excluded him from debate
Nov 02, 2015
Harvard professor Lawrence Lessig announced Monday that he was dropping his bid for the Democratic nomination because the party effectively "shut him out."
Lessig's campaign, which launched in early September, primarily focused on campaign finance reform and the failed electoral process.
In a video message posted to his campaign website, Lessig said that he was forced to drop out of the race because new Democratic Party rules excluded him from taking part in the upcoming debate.
"From the start it was clear that getting into the Democratic debates was the essential step to this campaign," he stated. However, under new inclusion rules announced last week "unless we can time travel there is no way I can qualify," Lessig said. "Under the new rule I am just shut out."
"I wanted to run for president as a Democrat because the values that I champion are shared by all Americans but especially Democrats," he said, adding that it is now clear to him "that the party won't let me be a candidate."
Lessig concludes his video message vowing to continue to press for electoral reform. "We can't solve any of the problems this nation must address until we fix the crippled and corrupted institution of Congress first," he added.
Watch the video below:
Keep ReadingShow Less
"I'm In": Lawrence Lessig Confirms White House Run
In a race that's been full of surprises, campaign finance reform advocate announces he's hit fundraising goal
Sep 07, 2015
Campaign finance reform advocate Lawrence Lessig on Sunday confirmed that he would run for U.S. president in 2016, announcing that the exploratory committee he formed in August had hit its $1 million fundraising target by its Labor Day deadline.
Lessig made his statement on ABC's This Week during an interview with host George Stephanopoulos.
"I'm in, George," he said. "I'm running to get people to acknowledge the elephant in the room, right. We have to recognize we have a government that does not work."
As he explained in August, Lessig will run on a platform that targets campaign finance--and, if elected, would step down as soon as Congress passed a package of pro-democracy reforms.
"I want to run to be a different kind of president," Lessig wrote for the Huffington Post last month. "'Different' not in the traditional political puffery sense of that term. 'Different,' quite literally. I want to run to build a mandate for the fundamental change that our democracy desperately needs. Once that is passed, I would resign, and the elected Vice President would become President."
It's the latest development in a race for the White House that has proven to be full of surprises, with the rapid rise of Sen. Bernie Sanders on the Democratic side and Donald Trump on the Republican.
"This stalemate, partisan platform of American politics in Washington right now doesn't work," Lessig said on Sunday. "And we have to find a way to elevate the debate to focus on the changes that would actually get us a government that could work again, that is not captured by the tiniest fraction of the 1 percent who fund campaigns and make it impossible for our government."
Keep ReadingShow Less
To Un-Rig Electoral System, A Plot to Treat 'Presidency as Referendum'
"We've lived through 'change you can believe in'," says Lawrence Lessig. "What we need now is a reason to believe in change."
Aug 11, 2015
Campaign finance reform advocate and Harvard Law professor Lawrence Lessig announced Tuesday that he is forming a committee to explore entering the Democratic primary for president--a job from which he says he would resign as soon as Congress passed a package of pro-democracy reforms.
"I want to run," Lessig wrote in the Huffington Post on Tuesday. "But I want to run to be a different kind of president. 'Different' not in the traditional political puffery sense of that term. 'Different,' quite literally. I want to run to build a mandate for the fundamental change that our democracy desperately needs. Once that is passed, I would resign, and the elected Vice President would become President."
He calls it "Presidency as referendum," meant to address "the deep sense that most Americans have that their government is not theirs."
Lessig's campaign and potential White House residency would solely focus on passing the Citizen Equality Act of 2017, which he says aims to restore "the right that all of us have in a representative democracy to be represented equally."
"That right has been violated in America today--and brazenly so," he said. "In the way campaigns are funded, in the way the poor and overworked are denied equal freedom to vote, and in the way whole sections of American voters get written into oblivion by politically gerrymandered districts that assure their views are not represented, we have allowed the politicians to cheat us of the most fundamental commitment of a democracy: equal citizens. And until we find a way to create a mandate to demand equality for citizens, we will never find a way to make real change possible."
Among other things, the Citizen Equality Act calls for overturning Citizens United, instituting Ranked Choice Voting, and adopting a campaign finance proposal that would give every voter a voucher to contribute to fund congressional and presidential campaigns and provide matching funds for small-dollar contributions to congressional and presidential campaigns.
As for his successor, Lessig told the Washington Post that he would pick a vice president "who is, clearly, strongly identified with the ideals of the Democratic Party right now," offering Sen. Elizabeth Warren (D-Mass.) as one possibility. He said Sen. Bernie Sanders (I-Vt.), who has railed against big money in politics on the campaign trail, was another option.
Lessig acknowledges that Sanders, more than any other presidential candidate, has talked extensively about the need for electoral reform.
"Sanders is a rare hero among politicians," Lessig wrote at the HuffPo. "Throughout his career, he has been unwavering in his advocacy for the issues he believes in, however unpopular. There isn't a triangulating bone in his body. And as people have come to know him and his history, they are inspired by a man who has stuck by his principles and whose principles are now more relevant and true than ever. The picture of 28,000 people attending a rally more than a year before an election shows hope for a democracy."
But even an "extraordinary" candidate like Sanders, Lessig continued, "is always divided among the 8 or 10 issues at the core of their campaign."
"What should be obvious to everyone--or at least the 82% of Americans who believe 'the system is rigged'--is that none of these incredible reforms is possible until we un-rig the rigged system first," he argued. "We've lived through 'change you can believe in.' What we need now is a reason to believe in change."
This is not the first time Lessig has experimented with an unconventional strategy for effecting political change. As Politico reports, Lessig recently left his position as chairman and CEO of Mayday PAC, a high-profile Super PAC he co-founded to back candidates committed to reforming campaign finance laws. But despite spending more than $10 million in 2014, the Super PAC had a spotty record of success, seeing victory in just two of the eight races it targeted, according to an analysis by Politico.
For more, watch the video below:
Keep ReadingShow Less
If Hong Kong Can Have a Pro-Democracy Movement... Why Can't the United States?
Why haven't American voters recognized how much they have in common with the tens of thousands of Hong Kong citizens who are now battling a false democratic system?
Oct 02, 2014
On Wednesday, China's Foreign Minister Wang Yi met with U.S. Secretary of State John Kerry in Washington, DC and made headlines for more or less telling the U.S. government not to interfere in matters concerning the pro-democracy movement that has engulfed the Chinese-administered territory of Hong Kong.
"The Chinese government has very firmly and clearly stated its position," stated Wang Yi as he stood beside Kerry outside the State Department building. "I believe for any country, for any society, no one would allow those illegal acts that violate public order. That's the situation in the United States and that's the same situation in Hong Kong."
"In America, we have accepted [democracy corrupted by big money] as as American as apple pie." --Lawrence LessigFor his part, Kerry offered the Obama administration's message that it objects to aspects of China's anti-democratic policies in Hong Kong, specifically their refusal for universal suffrage, and said he hopes "that the Hong Kong authorities will exercise restraint and respect the protestors' right to express their views peacefully."
And though it's a well-worn talking point--articulated here by the Guardian-- that the US has "always walked a delicate tightrope in its relations with China, eager to improve trade and economic ties with the world's second largest economy while also pressing for greater human rights"--Harvard law professor Lawrence Lessig, in an op-ed on Wednesday, argues that what's most striking dynamic about the situation in Hong Kong is not how leaders like Wang Yi and Kerry are delicatedly skirting the realities of their own self-interest, but why voters in the U.S. don't recognize how much they have in common with the tens of thousands of Hong Kong residents who have recognized how corrupt and nonexistence their democratic has become.
In Lessig's opinion, when it comes to calling for democratic reforms and amassing in large numbers in the streets, U.S. voters "should be protesting, too."
Invoking the legacy of William "Boss" Tweedy, known for masterminding New York and national politics on behalf of his fellow elites in 19th century America, Lessig writes that contemporary voters in the United States have become as disempowered by the role of big money in electoral politics (he calls it the "green primary") as have Hong Kong citizens under mainland China's one-party rule.
"I don't care who does the electing, so long as I get to do the nominating," Tweed famously said. And for Lessig, that is the mindset that draws a straight line between China's Communist Party leaders and the corporate and wealthy elites in the United States who have so radically captured American democracy in recent decades.
Lessig writes:
Of course, we don't have a democracy "dominated by a pro-Beijing business and political elite." But as a massive empirical study by Princeton's Martin Gilens and Benjamin I. Page published just last month shows, remove the word "pro-Beijing," and the charge translates pretty well.
America's government is demonstrably responsive to the "economic elite and organized business interests," Gilens and Page found, while "the preferences of the average American appear to have only a minuscule, near-zero, statistically non-significant impact upon public policy." Boss Tweed would have been impressed.
The "green primary" isn't a formal bar to election. But it is certainly an effective bar. There isn't a single political analyst in America today who doesn't look first to whether a candidate for Congress has the necessary financial support of the relevant funders. That money isn't enough, and it certainly doesn't guarantee victory. (Only 94 percent of candidates with more money win.) But no candidate ignores the money, or is ignorant of the views of the tiny fraction of the 1 percent that provides it. That's not perfect control, but it turns out to be control enough to weaken the ability of ordinary Americans to have something other than a "non-significant impact upon public policy."
The surprise in the Hong Kong plan is not that it fits Boss Tweed's mold. The surprise is the reaction of her students, and now people. To imagine a proportionate number of Americans -- 5 million -- striking against our own version of Tweedism is to imagine the first steps of a revolution. But in America, we don't protest our "democracy with Chinese characteristics." In America, we have accepted it as as American as apple pie.
Keep ReadingShow Less
"Super PAC to End Super PACs" Hits Goal, Takes Aim at Dark Money Politics
Lessig's Mayday project raises $12 million to combat corruptive influences in U.S. political system
Jul 07, 2014
The Mayday PAC, a progressive campaign finance reform project aimed at reducing the influence of a wealthy few in U.S. politics, met an ambitious $5 million goal on July 4.
When he launched the project earlier this year, Harvard Law professor and Internet activist Lawrence Lessig advised people to "embrace the irony" of needing to raise big money in order to overthrow its influence in politics.
Between matching funds and an additional $2 million raised in May, the Mayday PAC--known as the "SuperPAC to end all SuperPACs"--now has more than $12 million to spend on midterm elections, backing candidates who support the aim of reforming how U.S. political campaigns are financed.
Unlike most SuperPACs, which are funded by a small number of super-rich donors and corporations who critics say wield disproportionate influence over the political process, the Mayday PAC received donations from more than 52,000 individuals, the majority of whom contributed $100 or less.
"The pundits say 'America doesn't care about this issue,'" Lessig wrote in a public letter to supporters over the weekend. "This is America caring. And this is America demanding something more. Ideally now. But if we have to wait till 2016, then ok: Because by 2016, we're going to elect a Congress that will fundamentally change how campaigns are funded. You have guaranteed it."
The Mayday PAC will now turn its attention toward electing candidates who support legislative proposals to reform the campaign finance system. Those candidates will be announced mid-month, and will be selected based on the following objectives:
First, we must select districts where a victory would be both surprising, and understood to be tied to this reform. We are not looking for easy victories; nor are we looking for races in which different issues compete, and would make identifying the reason for victory difficult. We are looking for districts in which a victory would signal that conventional wisdom was wrong: that voters, that is, could be mobilized on the basis of this issue enough to dislodge even dominant incumbents.
Second, we must select a sufficiently wide range of districts so as to provide enough diversity to make valid the inferences we need to draw about other districts. Our campaigns will establish a baseline of attitudes before and after our intervention; we will track the effectiveness of those interventions to "move the needle" of attitudes related to reform. And we'll experiment with a wide range of techniques for engaging nontraditional voters to support candidates tied to reform.
_____________________
Keep ReadingShow Less
'New Hampshire Rebellion' Kicks Off Fight Against Money in Politics
Democracy advocates trek across state for campaign finance reform
Jan 11, 2014
Staging what they have dubbed "the New Hampshire Rebellion," a group lead by Harvard intellectual and activist Lawrence Lessig set out for a 185 mile journey across the "live free or die" state on Saturday, calling attention to what they see as one of the most important issues in U.S. politics today--the dire need for campaign finance reform.
"On Saturday, we begin a walk across the state of New Hampshire, to launch a campaign to bring about an end to the system of corruption that we believe infects DC. This is the New Hampshire Rebellion," states Lessig in a recent op-ed.
The march will pay homage to a similar attempt by famed activist Dorris Haddock, or "Granny D," who, fifteen years ago at the age of 88, marched across the United States from Los Angeles to Washington DC with a sign reading "Campaign Finance Reform" across her chest.
"Haddock is credited with helping to galvanize public will around the McCain-Feingold Campaign Finance Reform Act," Al Jazeera America reports, "which was signed into law in 2002." However, two months after Haddock passed away at the age of 100, the Supreme Court ruled in favor of big donors, and the politicians who use them, in Citizens United vs. Federal Election Commission, "which undid many of the limits put in place on campaign finance and heralded a new era in unprecedented spending by special interests and corporations."
Lessig said he expects over 100 people to join him along the way as they stop in over a dozen towns over the course of two weeks. The group will hold events and public discussions centered around the issues of big money in politics--and how to cleanse such influence from the democratic process.
Citing the importance of New Hampshire in U.S. presidential elections, being the site of the first presidential primary, the goal of the walk will be to convince voters to pressure candidates on the issue of campaign finance reform.
"Along the way, we will recruit everyone we can to do one thing: We want them to ask every presidential candidate at every event between now and January 2016, this one question: 'How will YOU end the system of corruption in DC?'" Lessig writes.
Lessig continues:
A system of corruption, not particular crimes. Our focus is not Rod Blagojevich; it is the system of campaign funding in which fundraising is key, and the funders represent the tiniest fraction of the 1%. That system, we believe, corrupts this democracy. (We, and 71% of Americans according to a recent poll.) And until that system changes, no sensible reform on the right or the left is possible. Politicians may continue to play this fundraising game. We believe that New Hampshire can change it.
As this question gets asked, we will record the responses. Literally. And post them. And through allied campaigns, we will put pressure on the candidates to surface this issue -- and if we're lucky -- make it central to their campaigns.
The walk begins in Dixville Notch, NH, the place the first 2016 presidential ballots will be cast and will end in Nashua, NH, on the day Granny D was born.
The activists embark Saturday January 11th, exactly one year after the the suicide of internet activist Aaron Swartz, a close friend and colleague of Lessig's.
"I wanted to find a way to mark this day," Lessig writes. "I wanted to feel it, as physically painful as it was emotionally painful one year ago, and every moment since. So I am marking it with the cause that he convinced me to take up seven years ago and which I am certain he wanted to make his legacy too."
Lessig is asking anyone who can to join the walk and sign an online petition to pressure candidates to take on the issue.
Lessig talks about the New Hampshire Rebellion:
Lawrence Lessig talks about the New Hampshire Rebellion (Animated)Prof. Lawrence Lessig, Director of the Edmond J. Safra Center for Ethics at Harvard University, and founder of the Rootstrikers, ...
Keep ReadingShow Less
See More Stories
Most Popular
To inform. To inspire. To ignite change for the common good.
News & Opinion
Trending
Common Dreams, Inc. Founded 1997. Registered 501(c3) Non-Profit
Privacy Policy