Lawrence Lessig: "Against Transparency". A must read that I think many will agree with:

[beachmom]

http://www.tnr.com/article/books-and-arts/against-transparency?page=0,3

It is a LONG article, but it really describes my own frustration with how John Kerry is attacked occasionally for campaign contributions that he supposedly was "influenced" by, where oftentimes, I just don't buy that underlying assumption. Lawrence describes why that is:

What does the fact of a contribution to a member of Congress mean? Does a contribution cause a member to take a position? Does a member’s position cause the contribution? Does the prospect of a contribution make a member more sensitive to a position? Does it secure access? Does it assure a better hearing? Do members compete for positions based upon the contributions they might expect? Do they covet committee assignments based upon the contributions that the committee will inspire? Does Congress regulate with an eye to whether its regulation might induce more contributions?

There is little doubt that the answer to each of these questions is, in some sense and at some time--remember those qualifiers!--yes. In a series titled Speaking Freely, published by the Center for Responsive Politics, you can find testimony from many former members from both parties to support each of those assertions. Everyone inside the system knows that claims about influence are, to some degree, true. It is the nature of the system, as we all know.

But there is also little doubt that it is impossible to know whether any particular contribution or contributions brought about a particular vote, or was inspired by a particular vote. Put differently, if there are benign as well as malign contributions, it is impossible to know for any particular contribution which of the two it is. Even if we had all the data in the world and a month of Google coders, we could not begin to sort corrupting contributions from innocent contributions.

Or at least "corrupting" in a certain sense. All the data in the world will not tell us whether a particular contribution bent a result by securing a vote or an act that otherwise would not have occurred. The most we could say--though this is still a very significant thing to say--is that the contributions are corrupting the reputation of Congress, because they raise the question of whether the member acted to track good sense or campaign dollars. Where a member of Congress acts in a way inconsistent with his principles or his constituents, but consistent with a significant contribution, that act at least raises a question about the integrity of the decision. But beyond a question, the data says little else.

The only time I saw Kerry seeming to act differently from principle was when he was against raising the "carried interest" taxes for hedge fund managers. It ended up that it had nothing to do with campaign contributions (I think it was less than $10K, and you know, and that would seem like chump change), but rather Kerry was trying to influence THEM to fund new energy projects. That failed, and now he is for the tax. There was ZERO corruption there. All the other contribution stories about him have been patently unfair since they were largely presidential contributions which are always going to be much larger than a typical Senator's campaign fundraising.

You can't even accuse a lot of Republicans of corruption necessarily by campaign contributions. A lot of them are really FOR big corporations doing as they please, because they think that will create the most jobs. So if this is their viewpoint, taking corporate PAC money isn't necessarily a corrupting influence. They would have voted that way regardless. I would argue that extreme right wing ideology is by definition corrupt, but that is in the eye of the beholder, of course.

Still, I am glad someone is arguing that simple contribution data is fairly meaningless. THANK YOU, Lawrence! BTW, I saw him speak and it was a great presentation. Sounds like he has learned a lot in the last 2 years about the perils of too utopian a notion about "naked transparency".

[karynnj]

1. Nice find - I agree with your praise of it

I agree with his comment that it clearly does lead to a corrupting of the reputation of Congress. (It also hurts even the President's looking at DU and other sources. I also agree that you wouldn't be able to tell even if you had a team of analysts to study the data.

Correlation between votes and contributions does not prove causality. It is easy to make the case that the causality is in the other direction. People working for a company will be impressed by someone who shares their passions. For instance, a researcher at a drug company, whose mission it is to develop a drug that helps people, will be impressed by a Senator who wants to find ways to encourage research on drugs and medical devices because it helps people and creates jobs.(The ONLY thing that might suggest corruption is if you see completely out of character votes near the time of related contributions.)

That does not mean that money is not a corrupting influence. Kerry's own "Clean Money" speech, which may have been as close to a rant as a Kerry Senate speech has gotten argued that it distorted who got the ear of legislators. I almost wonder if rather than "transparent" we would be better off making contributions "opaque". What if all contributions were blind to the legislator. This would radically change fund raising as there could be no $1000 a person meet and greets - as the support would not be secret. But, the millions raised on the internet would still be possible and, of course, politicians could ask for support at events, but any contributions would have to be sent in privately. Kind of the same idea as a blind trust for assets.

[beachmom]

2. And like clockwork we have an example of the stupidity of "transparency":

http://www.dailykos.com/story/2009/10/11/792306/-The-Treason-of-the-Senate:-Bill-Moyers-explains-who-really-owns-America

Maybe I am in the minority, but I have cooled to people like Bill Moyers, Bill Maher, and the general mood of Huffington Post. They paint with a broad brush, and all it does is breed cynicism. Accusing the Senate of "treason" is so over the top boneheaded I don't know where to begin. This is the kind of crap that wins nearly 450 recs on dkos. Where is the thinking? I guess I will never fit in with populists. There is no intelligence instilled. It is just a throwing up the arms and "THEY ARE ALL CORRUPT", and it is as easy a sell to the Right as it is to the Left. The Right will use it to get more of their totally with the corporations Republicans elected.

I am no shill for the Democratic party. I find the blue dogs to be opportunists, who can fill their coffers, by playing "bipartisan". But I would never accuse them of treason. And I would hesitate before using the term "corruption" until I had real evidence to support it (like Chambliss taking money from the sugar industry then blatantly shilling for them in a hearing against the whistleblower who predicted the tragedy that did occur, where employees DIED. That is corruption, and proved by the video I saw of him doing this dirty work for the sugar industry).

[karynnj]

3. Wow - perfect timing!

I am in that same minority. They really do breed cynicism.

[ProSense]

5. "I would never accuse them of treason." And

the same people who jumped on the DNC for calling out the RW, primarily Limbaugh for stating that he agrees with the Taliban on Obama's Nobel, likely see no problem with this.

Let's face it. There is something going on with Moyers, and I'm not sure what it is. I was always a big fan. Even during the Bush years, his arguments were sound and compelling, and they never went beyond reason. He was cogent and never over the top. Suddenly, he has unleashed fury on Democrats, primarily the Obama administration. Was he this big a critic of the Clinton administration? What agenda is served by trying to paint everyone as corrupt?

I don't get it. I wonder if this has something to do with having worked for LBJ?

[karynnj]

7. He had the same tone when he did the documentary on the rush to war

He ignored that there were Democrats speaking out starting the summer of 2002 when the idea of attacking Iraq first surfaced. I remember a strong Democratic push back - arguing that the terror vote could not be used, Bush needed to work with the UN and he had to consult Congress. (I am embarrassed to admit that I don't really associate which Democrats this was - I know it wasn't the Clintons. I vaguely remember JK as one.)

He did a good job going after the media on not questioning, but then turned on the Democrats for not countering - ignoring that he had just shown how mass media would not have covered it. (He completely ignored that JK's campaign was not treated like any other major party campaign in terms of some unfiltered coverage. If Kerry was saying things every single day - and the media never covers it, it is hard to blame him.

I think he is just alarmed and frightened for where the country is.

[beachmom]

9. Yeah, he has always been like this, but when it was aimed at Bush

it was sometimes harder to see. But OTOH, Prosense has a point that it has really gone off the deep end as of late. I stopped watching him because his stuff became too "certain". Any time you have decided you know it all (all politicians in DC are corrupt and that's why they're not doing what I want them to!!!), I find it less interesting.

Frankly, what are these folks going to do when health care reform passes (which I think it will)?

[karynnj]

10. True - I saw part of the one on health care and

it was exactly as you describe. It seems he no longer tries to see shades of gray.

As to the idea that all politicians are corrupt, these years of following Kerry, who I am not saying is typical, there are many easier ways for people with the skill set usually needed to win office to get fame and fortune. One is Moyer's own profession. To me it seems that they have a tough job, with long hours and the need to politely listen to complaints by everyone. This is not something that most other powerful people come close to doing.

[MH1]

4. Lessig is a really smart guy and I respect him a lot

and I definitely think he is making a good point here ...

but keep in mind that if we apply this argument for Kerry, we must also apply it for Baucus. (maybe not a problem for this group here, but in the wild wild left of blogistan - heh.)

[karynnj]

6. I agree, but I do not think he is saying that they are all not corrupted by money

I took it he is saying that you cannot determine that there is any corruption just looking at financial donations. Even in the case of Baucus, I would have a chicken or egg question - Do the various corporations support him because of his political philosophy that favors them - or do his policies favor them because he needed/wanted their support? In his case, there is also the question of whether anyone not involved in their regulatory work would even think to give him money if there wasn't some industry effort to do so. He is not their Senator and not that well known. But, I can't prove anything untoward.

I know my answer here would not please the blogosphere, but I really would want to see either a blatant give away (earmark) or a vote that is out of line with what would be expected coupled with major donations. (For instance, there large sums of money contributed by AT&T (or another telco) around the time their immunity under FISA was an issue. This was Fall 2007. I did find them suspicious for Democrats who voted for immunity if they added to an atypically high amount or were for anyone not running for something in 2008.)

[beachmom]

8. Excellent point, and I totally agree. And also for Republicans.

A lot of Democrats and Republicans take money from various sources, for which you could line the money up and line the votes up and label them "corrupt". However, in most cases, I don't think that's true. Or at least I am not sure. My Saxby Chambliss example is different, because the guy is unequivocally corrupt and working for evil. Those employees killed at that sugar plant were HIS CONSTITUENTS. The other Republican, a very pro-business Johnny Isakson, totally disagreed with Chambliss. So I think a corruption label is correct.

As to Baucus, I am not convinced he is "corrupt". He did after all really want to pass health care reform, but on a bipartisan basis. The problem for him was a lack of imagination, not realizing that all of that money flowing his way made him look bad. But I certainly am not on the bandwagon to label him corrupt. I really don't know. I just find him an insulated man, not realizing how ridiculous he has looked.