Lawrence Lessig, on Clinton and Lobbyists

On Clinton and lobbyists (Lessig Blog):

This is the (extraordinarily obvious) point the Wall Street Journal missed when it chimed in yesterday in support of the Senator. As the Journal wrote:

Her answer was met with jeers, but what Mrs. Clinton was daring to tell her left-wing audience is that lobbyists are an essential means by which average Americans transmit their political concerns to Washington, and in turn hold their elected Representatives accountable. Not everyone in America can afford to trek to D.C., or has the clout to demand an audience with a Senator. Lobbyists represent the collective voice of groups with shared ideals, whether they be gun owners, union workers, corporate employees or the pro-choice movement.

Just the sort of reasoning that makes that page so famous: Look, lawyers represent their clients before a judge. Does it follow from that that judges must be free to take money from lawyers? Even just to redecorate their office?

Larry Lessig is somebody whose integrity, and whose thoughts on political integrity, I have trusted ever since I was reading his blog back in ’04, when he pointed out that it shouldn’t matter to us whether or not Bush evaded military service back in the day, it should matter to us whether or not he was going to lead the country according to wise policies today (to which the answer happened to be a resounding “no,” of course).

He doesn’t trust Clinton to do anything to change the system of influence-buying that controls Washington.

Another nail in the coffin of any chance I would support Clinton. I don’t even know if I could bring myself to vote for her in the next election if she’s nominated. I really wanted to like her, just because of the seething, irrational hatred that the Limbaugh crowd had for her. But she just doesn’t seem to be in my corner on much of anything. She’s kind of like what a Republican candidate would be if it weren’t a job requirement for Republican candidates to be completely freaking insane these days.

That’s it, she’s basically a moderate Republican, as far as I can tell.

And now Dr. Lessig has signed off as not trusting her, too.

2 thoughts on “Lawrence Lessig, on Clinton and Lobbyists”

  1. Post-2000, the Greens said claims that Nader “cost the Democrats the election” were invalid because they proceeded from the false premise that a Democrat was entitled to any vote cast left of the Republican candidate. “You shouldn’t have to vote for the lesser of two evils, you should vote your ideals.”

    Well, you shouldn’t have to see your tax dollars go to turning an entire country into a ruined charnel house, either.

  2. Oh, I don’t know. Hillary was involved with that attempt to link minimum wage to the salary of congresspersons. I liked that. (Actually, I think Obama was involved in that bill too, wasn’t he?)

Comments are closed.