'Wikipedia' Approach Will Transform Congress

http://blog.wired.com/27bstroke6/2008/03/stanford-law-pr.html

Stanford Law Professor Larry Lessig Bets 'Wikipedia' Approach Will Transform Congress
By Sarah Lai Stirland EmailMarch 20, 2008 | 4:39:25 PMCategories: Politics
Lessig_630x
Stanford law professor Larry Lessig plans to use collaborative software to change Congress.
Courtesy Larry Lessig

A prominent Stanford law professor on Thursday launched an ambitious project that aims to use collaborative software to harness the extraordinary levels of pent-up political energy and dissatisfaction that voters have shown over the past two years with their members of congress.

The Change Congress project's first mission is to diminish the influence of money in the legislative body by influencing the outcome of the 2008 election campaigns of 67 members of congress which are up for grabs. As the Change Congress project founder Larry Lessig noted in the project's launch Thursday afternoon, there haven't been so many seats open up for challenge in more than a decade.

Lessig, known for his decade-long role in trying to loosen the entertainment industry's vise-like grip on popular culture by shaping copyright law, is betting that the energy and dissatisfaction exhibited by voters against the status-quo in Washington DC, and the emergence of collaborative software that enables vast numbers of geographically-dispersed citizens to become politically active on their own schedule, will enable a new kind of transparency and accountability in political campaigns.

"The problem we face is ... the problem of crony capitalism using money to capture government," he said on Monday during the launch of his project in Washington, DC. "The challenge is whether in fact we can change this. The political experts tell you that it can't be done, that process always win over substance."

Lessig and Joe Trippi hope that their project will bring the beginnings of this change by getting voters to challenge their members of congress to commit to Change Congress' four pledges. The project will rely on engaged voters to record and map both the responses by, and the positions of candidates who are running for open seats. The idea is to make what seems like an abstract idea visually tangible through a Google mash-up.

The professor wants legislators to promise to do four things which he says will reduce the influence of money on policymaking: To promise not to accept money from lobbyists and political action committees; support public financing of elections; commit to passing legislation to permanently ban the funneling of money to their districts' projects of questionable worth; and to commit to "compel transparency in the functioning of congress."

Candidates can signal their intentions to take any one or all of the pledges by filling out a form at the organization's web site, which then formulates code that provides a graphic that the candidates can then place on their election campaign web sites.

The Change Congress project hopes that citizens will track congressional candidates' positions on these issues by reporting on them at the web site. The project will then map these results onto a Google map. Writing in The Huffington Post this morning, Lessig explained:

... once this wiki-army has tracked the positions of all Members of Congress, we will display a map of reform, circa 2008: Each Congressional district will be colored in either (1) dark red, or dark blue, reflecting Republicans or Democrats who have taken a pledge, (2) light red or light blue, tracking Republicans and Democrats who have not taken our pledge, but who have signaled support for planks in the Change-Congress platform, or (3) for those not taking the pledge and not signaling support for a platform of reform, varying shades of sludge, representing the percentage of the Member's campaign contributions that come from PACs or lobbyists.

...

What this map will reveal, we believe, is something that not many now actually realize: That the support for fundamental reform is broad and deep. That recognition in turn will encourage more to see both the need for reform and the opportunity that this election gives us to achieve it. Apathy is driven by the feeling that nothing can be done. This Change Congress map will demonstrate that in fact, something substantial can be done. Now.

Lessig says that the project will, down the road, model itself on Emily's List in that it will recruit contributors to finance candidates who make reforming congress a central part of their campaign.

When the Democrats re-took congress in 2006, they won on a platform built by House Speaker Nancy Pelosi's mantra of being against the Republicans' culture of corruption.

Yet the Democratic-led congress' current job approval rating is in the low twenties. This apparent dissatisfaction suggests that a large body of people might be ready and interested in volunteering for the Change Congress project.

So far, senator Barack Obama's campaign for the Democratic nomination for president has surged on this theme of bringing change to Washington, DC. The Illinois senator's seemingly magical combination of inspirational rhetoric, off-line community-organization strategies, combined with the smart design of online social networking tools have fostered high levels of engagement.

The question facing the Change Congress campaign is whether Lessig and his colleagues at the Sunlight Foundation can motivate a bi-partisan electorate to become similarly engaged without -- at first at least -- the funds and advertising budget that's powering the Obama campaign.

In an interview, Lessig says that for now, he's going to focus on motivating people to volunteer their time to research members of congress' positions on transparency, accountability and public financing of campaigns.

"If you give them a big vision, and talk about all the good things that will come out of it, then I think a lot of people will be willing to do the wiki work [at home] in their pajamas," he says. "The hard thing is getting them to go to rallies and getting them to call their congressman."

Lessig says that his goal is to raise $500,000 to fund the project for the year by May 1. He hopes to hire a couple of staffers in the San Francisco bay area and an executive director.

The project has bipartisan appeal -- Republicans took over congress in 1994 with similar promises of sweeping change. As National Journal has thoroughly documented, many of those promises were not fulfilled.

This time, it could be different -- now that an engaged electorate has software and an open reporting system to hold their members' feet to the fire.

Update: In answer to the reader below's question on what happens if a member of congress takes a pledge and doesn't follow through, Lessig says that he anticipates that each district will have voters who will monitor their members' activities and report on them.

"If you violate the pledge, you've created a huge opportunity for people to attack you," he says.

Update: The Sunlight Foundation has posted footage of the lecture up on Google Video:

See Also:

* ETech: Lessig Calls for Geeks to Code Money Out of Politics
* Digital Culture Shift: Lessig Leaves IP Battle
* Is the Obama Campaign Really Different?
* Stanford Law Professor Larry Lessig Explores Bid for Congress
* Lessig Won't Run for Congress After All


Yahoo! Buzz add to StumbleUpon
Stumble
ShareThis


Comments (0)

Want to start a new thread or reply to a post?
Login/Register and start talking!
There are no comments
Login/Registration



So, what color will be used for members of congress taking the pledge and not following through? I imagine this would be the most common color...

Posted by: Paul | Mar 20, 2008 2:07:37 PM

well i think thats a good way, to track and make sure those who we put in power are doing the thing that we put them in power to do! but i still feel like i need more info on this topic...

Posted by: marcos caraballo | Mar 20, 2008 3:01:57 PM

How about wiki-legislation where the online community can craft the actual legislation. Leave out crony lobbiest who try for there own interests. Let the people speak on what is really important and let the congress be accountable for taking action. Then wiki-fucking-hang them by showing how they are voting against the interest of the citizens who wrote the legislation by favoring the people who give them money for their vote against it.

Posted by: batrhyme | Mar 20, 2008 5:11:21 PM

Agree with batrhyme. I have the same idea in mind. So bad I am not American, otherwise we may work together to start a wiki-legislation.

Posted by: wshun | Mar 20, 2008 5:59:26 PM

Good idea! I want to revert bad legislation for conflicts of interest.

Of course, then the problem will be how the elite demowikipublican cabal shuns ordinary contributors...

Posted by: Colbert In '08 | Mar 20, 2008 6:59:15 PM

There is only one way to reduce government corruption. Reduce the size of government and there will be no reason to buy politicians. Individual Americans who expect the rest of their fellow citizens to reach into their pockets to bail them out should be disappointed, same as the corporations who want our cash. Limited government is the heritage of the Founders, and the hope of America's future.

Posted by: RKV | Mar 20, 2008 7:09:06 PM

While we're at it, why not get commitments to cut the foolish manuvering of the House and Senate Rules to keep vital legislation "bottled up" so that it cannot get an "up or down vote" of all members. To wit: Consent / or non-Consent of Judicial appointments, and the communications monitoring bill (among numerous others) in the present Congress.

Posted by: gentlemanfarmer | Mar 20, 2008 7:24:36 PM

Legislaters are famous for saying one thing and doing the opposite. Taking money from lobbyist and PACs is not legal now. We have public financing for the presidential race and what mess that is. As far as complete transparency of functions of congress good luck. I do however like the consept. elk

Posted by: ervin kinkennon | Mar 20, 2008 8:07:21 PM

If politicians fulfilled their promises, then what would they have to promise in the next election?

Posted by: Krator | Mar 20, 2008 8:48:28 PM

Public financing sounds like a good way to give power back to the Little Guys, but it simply hands the campaign purse strings to the incumbent politicians. We're talking about politicians spending Other People's Money to fund their own reelection! And you can bet that they will keep public money out of their challengers' hands with a maze of funding requirements under the guise of "keeping the loonies out." When politicians make their own rules, you get things like the Democrat's undemocratic superdelegates..

Posted by: Chris Peterson | Mar 20, 2008 9:02:45 PM

Wikipeida, in of it's self and it's internal system of control is absolutely corrupt and unreliable. Wikipeida is not a trustworthy source of information.

I hope Congress revisits Section 230 of the CDA of 1996 and redefine Wikipeida as a "content provider" and make answer for it's misinformation and defamation of people's reputations.

Right now Wikipeida and it's 15 year old, redbull fueled punk administrators are now untouchable and out of control and should not be trusted

Posted by: someoneuknow | Mar 20, 2008 9:45:25 PM

You Can Not Buy the current Generation of Politicians.

YOU CAN ONLY RENT THEM!

The next higher offer coming through the door generates an instant, staff rationalized, "adjustment" in Position, based on 'extensive Staff research'.

Any accommodation to Principle is OK, if it increases funds available for re-election!

Re-election for most current Politicians is their REAL GOD!

Ethically challenged Corporations, and Lobbyists (oxymoron's) milk this sorry system to the maximum.

It allows such interests to easily divert substantial Taxpayer Money to their own personal coffers - e.g. through Earmarks, No-bid Contracts, stopping any honest congressional attempt to limit or stop really bad procurement programs, etc

It also often provides easy day to day access to the incumbent's office and staff for such 'highly valued' contributors.

This simplifies getting the Contributor's Profit agenda into the incumbent or candidate's Congress or Senate Bill generation/consideration process.

Regards

Brillig


Posted by: Brillig | Mar 20, 2008 11:37:26 PM

I agree that to ensure this country's government remains democratic (by the people, etc.), this proposed system is viable. However, many national elections are set up by the Constitution and laws to NOT be directly controlled by the public for the purpose of the outcomes influenced by the most educated Elector voters, as reasoned by The Federalist Papers of the 1780's. As an aside, see Federalist No. 10 against "special interests". The Electoral College is composed of members not even required to vote the way the public wishes them to. Is this system proposing changing the Constitution and its current interpretive laws? Concerning Congressional members who take a pledge and don't follow through, is there a means for the member to explain his reasoning? Political decisions are not always black-and-white; a promise can be made one day with one set of circumstances, and changed the next with new circumstances, often without explanation to the public or an explanation that satisfies all. Concerning the "sweeping changes" everyone wants, I agree that the Republican Congress of the 1990's ran amok and lied and wasted lots of my money. However, when does the change end, when is the change enough, and when is everyone going to be satisfied with the result? Plus, are we really saying that we want the public to influence how the government is set-up and ran, when that same public is more interested in watching football, drinking beer, and only gets their political news from loud mouth biased sources like the FOX NEWS network (notoriously conservative and annoyingly loud)? In conclusion, this proposed system is a good start at least; but we should probably "leave the important stuff to the experts", except only the ones who do the "right" thing.

Posted by: Christopher. | Mar 21, 2008 12:30:47 AM

How about the commitment to SHRINK GOVERNMENT??? Less Taxes, Less Spending, Less Regulation, Less Interference in Our Lives? How about a new commitment to the Constitution, and its Rules of Government? A movement away from Socialism! No interference in Commerce, no interference in people's personal lives. Then I'd support this idea, but not at the expense of more personal freedoms and greater government control over things like Health Care, Education, & Personal Choice that does not harm another human being.

Posted by: Captaindiesalot | Mar 21, 2008 12:53:45 AM

I like it! We need accountability in government. I could rant on a tangent but this is a step in a good direction. Step up people.

Posted by: | Mar 21, 2008 1:31:34 AM

I like it! We need accountability in government. I could rant on a tangent but this is a step in a good direction. Step up people.

Posted by: | Mar 21, 2008 1:32:28 AM

Without corporate money, a candidate cannot win an election.

What needs to be done is to build a 100 dollar box that bring Miro BitTorrent RSS feeds to the TV and have it so easy to use any grand mother can use it with a remote control only. To bring personalized TV to everyone and have that take over the current media control by cable, nationnal, satellite tv channels. Cause corporate campaign donations go to pay for advertising on those TV channels. So if you remove the need to advertise on those channels to reach the whole population with political ideas, then there is no need for corporate campaign donations.

You also need to use wiki technology to replace the congressmen, senators, presidents by the people themselves. Build web tools so people can decide for themselves and elected officials should just be our secretaries and carry out the decisions that the people make. This is possible by using clever algorithms with online polls, forums, wiki and stuff like that. If the founding father had the Internet, they'd think of a way people vote with their mobile phones instead of thinking about doing representative democracy. I think I know how to do those things http://techvideoblog.com

Posted by: Charbax | Mar 21, 2008 1:44:00 AM

Public financing is a sham. Look at a state like Maine where it's in place for the legislature. Legislative caucuses run campaigns that are just as vapid and manipulative as anyplace else, except there is less accountability and transparency.

All the so-called "campaign finance reform" to date has had the principle effect of "professionalizing" political campaigns by making the process impossible for amateurs - would-be "citizen legislators - to participate. Incumbent legislators (and Congress) run their institutions as corrupt "incumbent protection rackets."

Public financing would only exacerbate all that, and worsen the systemic dysfunctions, not cure them.

How much is George Soros contributing to the project, BTW?

Posted by: Jack McHugh | Mar 21, 2008 6:09:27 AM

How about a link to where we can get involved?

Posted by: Fred Finn | Mar 21, 2008 7:44:50 AM

This system is already in place. It's called downsizedc.org

It's a Congressional correspondence forum that makes it easy for citizens to have a dialouge with their elected officials.

You can also opt-in to emails from the site which update you on current issues.

Posted by: OH | Mar 21, 2008 7:47:24 AM

Is there any point to this if we keep electing thieves and immoral crooks to office? Does it really matter whether they are owned by corporations or by special interest groups?

There is less than a handful of elected politicians who respect my liberties, the rest have no interest in obeying the Constitution. I can already hear the opposition mouthing the “it’s a living, breathing document” nonsense and I always wonder if they have any luck with that logic in a civil court (“your honor, this contract is a ‘living breathing’ document, I shouldn’t be held liable for not keeping up my end…”).

If we keep voting for the same mindset, it simply does not matter who finances their re-elections. We will continue to get what we deserve, representatives who buy our votes with our own money, an un-Constitutional government that is not restrained by anything other than opinion polls. Even if this system were in place, the federal government would still extort half of my working life to finance un-Constitutional programs and wars. They would still violate my liberties by enforcing un-Constitutional drug laws, money laundering regulations. We would still be losing our property rights, our right to live as we choose, raise our families as we desire and educate ourselves in the manner we want.

All of this is just re-arranging the deck chairs on the Titanic.

Posted by: American Sharecropper | Mar 21, 2008 9:30:38 AM

fred, sorry it's not more transparent -- the link is at change-congress.org

Posted by: sls | Mar 21, 2008 9:32:36 AM

As Christopher says above, it's not so black and white. For example, in California, the speaker of the house is Fabian Núñez. PACs that want favors don't have to give cash directly to Núñez. The PACs contribute to "charities" like "The Fabian Núñez Toy Drive." Fabian pushes PAC legislation while indirectly passing out toys to his constituents which ultimately leads to his re-election, while never breaking his "pledge to refuse PAC money." Lobbyist and politicians will always find ways to launder bribes.

Posted by: William Frantz | Mar 21, 2008 9:52:44 AM

Corporate money is evil - unless it's Google Inc's corporate money.

Then Prof.Lessig is happy to be a puppet for corporate money.

Posted by: Cardinal Sin | Mar 21, 2008 10:12:16 AM

Good luck with that!

Even if ever politician complied with all these pledges, the money would just be paid into numbered Swiss accounts, just like in Third World countries (as ours is on the way to becoming).

Posted by: Rich Hudson | Mar 21, 2008 1:15:43 PM

The entry reads:

"entertainment industry's vice-like grip"

It should read:

"entertainment industry's vise-like grip"

A vise is a mechanical device for holding something tightly.

A vice is an interest you have that others disapprove of.

"vice-like grip" has pun value in this context, but is wrong in fact.

Posted by: Ben | Mar 21, 2008 2:21:59 PM

wikipedia is the best i think, but i am really worried it will change like yahoo and google. http://www.opentopix.com/topic/tech-news/wikipedia-questions-path-to-more-money

Posted by: frank pester | Mar 21, 2008 2:26:07 PM

"This Change Congress map will demonstrate that in fact, something substantial can be done. Now."

Unfortunately, what it will probably demonstrate is that a map can be created that is all sludge, and that congress, faced on the one hand with a romp in the hay with a paid-for companion, a "fact-finding trip" in the Bahamas, and 20 million for their local economy... will find that some website's map coloration carries approximately zero weight in comparison.

The real problem here is an out of control government that no longer considers itself bound by the constitution. We have been living in a 3rd world dictatorship for some years now, and every day, the differences become less and less.

How will we get the commerce clause recognized again? How can we stop congress from making ex post facto laws? How can we stop them from infringing our right to keep and bear arms? How will we stop them from infringing our right to free speech? How can we stop them from letting the executive and teh judiciary run roughshod over the law and the constitution?

These are the important questions of the day, and they have no answers that find expression in any political process available to us.

That is where your apathy comes from. And that is where your failure will come from.

Posted by: Ben | Mar 21, 2008 2:30:19 PM

...Professor Lessig wants legislators to promise to do four things which he says will reduce the influence of money on policymaking: (1) To promise not to accept money from lobbyists and political action committees; (2) support public financing of elections; (3) commit to passing legislation to permanently ban the funneling of money to their districts' projects of questionable worth; (4) and to commit to "compel transparency in the functioning of congress." ...

These are extremely vague concepts. I predict this project is doomed to failure.

1 - What if I were to invite 25 business associates to a dinner party, and the candidate attends the party and accepts personal campaign contributions from every attendee. Have I just created a political action committee? What if 20 of those 25 did the same? Do you think the congressman will answer my calls and listen to my "concerns"?

2 - Why should my congress person vote to give away my tax money to every nut who wants to run for office? Free campaign money will just make the choice of candidates much more confusing. In fact, now that money is available, I think I will run for office too.

3 - "projects of questionable worth"???? Who is put in charge of determining what is of questionable worth? The people of the district to receive the project? Or the local law professor who wants to transform congress?

4 - "compel transparency". Wow, what a concept. Have you ever watched a city council meeting on television? Well, that is exciting compared to the work of the Congress of the United States.

This is just another big pipe dream. In my opinion.

Posted by: James C | Mar 21, 2008 3:50:59 PM

"The project has bipartisan appeal -- Republicans took over congress in 1994 with similar promises of sweeping change. As National Journal has thoroughly documented, many of those promises were not fulfilled."

The words "National Journal" are linked to the main site for the magazine National Journal. This is not a satisfactory citation for demonstrating that many promises of the 1994 "Contract with America" platform were not fulfilled. I'm not disagreeing with the fact itself, but you can't cite a _magazine_ to prove a vast, sweeping assertion like that.

Posted by: JS | Mar 21, 2008 6:57:07 PM

Thanks for taking the time to comment, JS. I was actually referring to a cover story that traced the fate of the congressmen who were voted in on those promises. The story traced their careers and illustrated how those promises just melted away, and they just became part of the DC establishment or left DC altogether.

The article was notable because its premise addresses the fundamental question of how one can change an institution while being part of its machinery.

Posted by: sls | Mar 22, 2008 9:02:33 AM

Another harebrained scheme from Larry Lessig. I feel sorry for the poor souls who separate themselves from $500,000 to support a project that could be run for $2,000 on a shared hosting site.

Posted by: Gregory Kohs | Mar 23, 2008 5:53:35 AM

This could be an alternative to voting DRIP - Don't Re-elect Incumbent Politicians

Posted by: ve744 | Mar 23, 2008 6:23:15 AM

so they want candidates to promise not to accept campaign donations from lobbyists or special interests...

yet, they plan to start working to funnel money towards candidates who embrace the pledges, a la EMILY's List... (fyi, per the EMILY's List website, they "contributed over $11 million" to candidates in the '06 cycle)...

anyone else see a disconnect here?

i guess it's not a problem for candidates to take money from interest groups if you happen to agree with them...

Posted by: travisty | Mar 23, 2008 10:24:13 AM

You had my support until you cited your support for Al Gore and his inconvenient lie about global warming. You now have zero credibility in my book. Good luck with whirled peas.

Posted by: greg chesney | Mar 23, 2008 1:01:14 PM

Deport the Congress, then build a fence before they sneak back in!

Actually, I really think that we should bring back two tried and true punishments for just polititions - public flogging for misdomenors and public crucifixion for felonies.

Posted by: CA | Mar 24, 2008 11:04:03 AM

Alright. Already. Congress is held in contempt (as it has been for the past 230 years, at least). Today, registered lobbyists in D.C. number more than the total number of civilian employees in our nation's capitol. Now THAT is new.
The missing part of the equation in our demand for change is ourselves. What can we do that we are not doing now? For one thing, we can check the labels on the goods we buy and find a way to purchase "Made in the USA" products. (Let's make up a directory that consumers can refer to). For another, we need to know which corporations have shipped off the most jobs to other countries to save money, of course. Is there an alternative firm we can patronise? If not, how do we let corporate know we will take our patronage elsewhere as soon as possible?
The corporate domination of our political process has become a fact of life. For starters, if we can successfully challenge a corporation's legal status as a "separate entity" with all the rights and privileges you and I enjoy under the law, it will give us an opportunity to at long last level the playing field. But, be prepared for a legal fire fight. Corporations have employed an ungodly number of us to work for their interests.
In the meantime, we can hold the politician's feet to the fire over campaign funding and conflicts of interest.
There is work enough for us all.

Posted by: pat safford | Mar 25, 2008 10:10:36 PM

Public funded elections? No thanks, unless it's completely voluntary. I'm already taxed to death.

And anyway, none of this would be needed if our elected representatives read, understood and adhered to the Constitution they swear to uphold. The government exists to protect life, liberty and property, not to do things for people.

Posted by: liberteebell | Apr 1, 2008 4:05:58 PM

"...To promise not to accept money from lobbyists and political action committees"
Lobbyists are not the problem! Weak and corrupt politicians who bend over and let the lobbyists take whatever they want ARE THE PROBLEM! Elect someone with INTEGRITY and you have no lobbyist problem!!!!!!!!!!!! WAKE UP, SHEEP! VOTE LIBERTARIAN!

Posted by: Mark in Illinois | Apr 1, 2008 4:57:07 PM