DOCSLIB.ORG

Cfr Primer Final May 27

Total Page：16

File Type：pdf, Size：1020Kb

Download full-text PDF Read full-text
Cfr Primer Final May 27 League of Women Voters Money in Politics: Developing a Common Understanding of the Issues A Primer for Engagement of League Members and Fellow Citizens - 2014 Money in Politics: Developing a Common Understanding of the Issues A Primer for Engagement of League Members and Fellow Citizens I. Introduction ............................................................................................................... 3 II. Using this Presentation and Discussion Guide ........................................................... 4 III. Overview of the Issues ............................................................................................... 5 IV. A Brief History of Campaign Finance Reform .......................................................... 7 V. Money in Politics: The Current Scene...................................................................... 10 Debate within the legal establishment .................................................................................. 10 Remaining Federal contribution limits ................................................................................. 11 The experience of recent elections ........................................................................................ 11 VI. LWVUS positions and efforts related to CFR ......................................................... 12 VII. Approaches for Addressing the Issues and Problems .............................................. 14 Approaches not requiring Constitutional change ................................................................. 14 Proposals for Constitutional amendments ............................................................................ 16 Pros and cons for the two main approaches ......................................................................... 17 VIII. Some Discussion Starting Points ............................................................................. 18 IX. Conclusion ............................................................................................................... 19 Resources .......................................................................................................................... 21 Appendix A. Definitions ................................................................................................... 25 Appendix B. Bill of Rights ……………………………………………………………...28 Appendix C. The First Amendment …………………………………………………….29 Appendix D. Timeline of Significant Congressioal and Acts and Supreme Court Decisions ………………………………………………………………………………...33 Appendix E: Regulations pertaining to tax-exempt organizations ................................... 36 Appendix F. Provisions of the American Anti-Corruption Act ........................................ 38 Appendix G: Review of Constitutional Amendments Proposed in Response to Citizens United ................................................................................................................................ 40 Appendix H: Provisions in Amendments before 113th Congress ..................................... 45 Appendix I. State Information .......................................................................................... 47 Disclaimer: The information presented in this paper is background information. It does not necessarily imply that the LWVUS supports or opposes any particular concept or piece of legislation. For information about where the LWVUS stands on a particular piece of legislation, please go to LWVUS.org or contact the LWVUS at 202-429-1965. If you are a League member and are approached to take a position in the name of the League and/or to advocate in the name of the League, contact your state League or LWVUS before proceeding. p. 2 (May, 2014) I. Introduction “Money in politics affects and afflicts every issue that the League works on and cares so much about. We all know that as long as money flows into politics at the unchecked rate that it does, the voice of the public will be drowned out by the special interests. For this reason, the LWV has focused on this as far back as the 1970’s when the Watergate scandal demonstrated what the effects of unchecked money and quid pro quo practices have done to undermine governance for the public good.” Judy Duffy, Advocacy Committee Chair, report to Convention 2012 “At bottom, the Court's opinion is thus a rejection of the common sense of the American people, who have recognized a need to prevent corporations from undermining self-government since the founding, and who have fought against the distinctive corrupting potential of corporate electioneering since the days of Theodore Roosevelt. It is a strange time to repudiate that common sense. While American democracy is imperfect, few outside the majority of this Court would have thought its flaws included a dearth of corporate money in politics.” Justice John Paul Stevens, dissenting opinion in the Supreme Court decision in Citizens United v. Federal Election Commission, 2010 “This political system is awash in money… The effect of all this, unfortunately, leads to the cynicism and the frustration of the American people and their lack of confidence in the system. It's got to change...” Senator John McCain, David Letterman show, Jan. 12, 2012 Whatever else it may or may not have done, the Supreme Court's 2010 decision in the case of Citizens United v. Federal Election Commission galvanized the campaign finance reform (CFR) movement and aroused huge numbers of citizens who had never been involved in that movement before. New civic organizations sprang up across the country, proposals for Constitutional amendments proliferated, and action was demanded from regulators, legislators, courts and even corporate boards of directors. The League of Women Voters has been an active participant in CFR for over four decades. It formally adopted a Campaign Finance position in 1974. It continually monitors, and when appropriate, advocates for campaign finance reform in legislative, judicial and regulatory forums at the federal and state levels. It lobbied strongly for the passage of the Bipartisan Campaign Reform Act, cosponsored by Senators McCain and Feingold and passed in 2002. It calls public attention to the issues through regular press releases and op ed pieces, and it works in coalition with other organizations. But the League, no less than the movement at large, faces challenges in the post-Citizens United landscape. The two-track strategy described in its biennial publication Impact on Issues (“achieve incremental reforms where possible in the short term, and build support for public financing as the best long-term solution”) seems to be running up against new barriers erected by the Supreme Court at every turn, although the League continues to advocate strongly within the remaining Constitutional arena. A resolution passed at the 2012 LWVUS Convention urged the League to enlarge that arena by considering other means of challenging the Supreme Court's interpretations, including amending the Constitution. p. 3 (May, 2014) In January 2012, LWVUS established a new Campaign Finance Task Force (CFTF). In her report to the 2012 Convention, Judy Duffy described its mission as follows: With the Supreme Court busy undercutting protections against corruption in our political system, the task force is looking at the variety of steps the League at all levels can take, both over the short term and the long term, to address the situation. http://www.lwv.org/content/advocacy-report-june-2012 The LWVUS Board charged the task force with researching issues related to the Citizens United decision, including possible Constitutional amendments. A review of the Constitutional amendments before the 112th Congress, then in session, was prepared. (See Appendix G of this Primer.) After the 2012 Convention, the task force continued its work, completing an informational paper on the history of LWV action on campaign finance and what Leagues can do now, available at http://www.lwv.org/content/lwv-us- action-campaign-finance. The next task of the CFTF was to prepare a money-in-politics discussion guide to be used by Leagues across the country for members and for the public. A tentative outline and a call for materials were published in early 2013. This Primer is the result of work by members of the CFTF as well as other League members active on state CFR committees. II. Using this Presentation and Discussion Guide This Primer has been written for the use of League members as part of informing themselves, their Leagues and the general public. It is not a League study guide, and the questions that are included are intended only to provide starting points for discussion. They are in no sense “consensus questions” like those in a formal League study. The goal, as stated in the title, is to develop a common understanding of the issues. Such an understanding may eventually form the basis for a League study designed to reach consensus on the solutions it wishes to pursue. In the following sections of this text, we pull together the background that is needed to understand how campaign finance in the United States has evolved into the dysfunctional system now on display, as well as the many remedies that have been proposed. While the League's CFR history is very important to the users of this Primer, the discussion of proposed remedies must go beyond the League's past and current work if we are to have any hope of arriving at a “common understanding.” Section III is a non-legalistic formulation of the basic issues. Since campaigning
Load more

Recommended publications
  • Stephen Colbert's Super PAC and the Growing Role of Comedy in Our
    STEPHEN COLBERT’S SUPER PAC AND THE GROWING ROLE OF COMEDY IN OUR POLITICAL DISCOURSE BY MELISSA CHANG, SCHOOL OF PUBLIC AFFAIRS ADVISER: CHRIS EDELSON, PROFESSOR IN THE SCHOOL OF PUBLIC AFFAIRS UNIVERSITY HONORS IN CLEG SPRING 2012 Dedicated to Professor Chris Edelson for his generous support and encouragement, and to Professor Lauren Feldman who inspired my capstone with her course on “Entertainment, Comedy, and Politics”. Thank you so, so much! 2 | C h a n g STEPHEN COLBERT’S SUPER PAC AND THE GROWING ROLE OF COMEDY IN OUR POLITICAL DISCOURSE Abstract: Comedy plays an increasingly legitimate role in the American political discourse as figures such as Stephen Colbert effectively use humor and satire to scrutinize politics and current events, and encourage the public to think more critically about how our government and leaders rule. In his response to the Supreme Court case of Citizens United v. Federal Election Commission (2010) and the rise of Super PACs, Stephen Colbert has taken the lead in critiquing changes in campaign finance. This study analyzes segments from The Colbert Report and the Colbert Super PAC, identifying his message and tactics. This paper aims to demonstrate how Colbert pushes political satire to new heights by engaging in real life campaigns, thereby offering a legitimate voice in today’s political discourse. INTRODUCTION While political satire is not new, few have mastered this art like Stephen Colbert, whose originality and influence have catapulted him to the status of a pop culture icon. Never breaking character from his zany, blustering persona, Colbert has transformed the way Americans view politics by using comedy to draw attention to important issues of the day, critiquing and unpacking these issues in a digestible way for a wide audience.
    [Show full text]
  • REPUBLIC, LOST How Money Corrupts Congress—And a Plan to Stop It
    REPUBLIC, L OST REPUBLIC, LOST How Money Corrupts Congress—and a Plan to Stop It ★ Lawrence Lessig NEW YORK BOSTON Copyright © 2011 by Lawrence Lessig All rights reserved. Except as permitted under the U.S. Copyright Act of 1976, no part of this publication may be reproduced, distributed, or transmitted in any form or by any means, or stored in a database or retrieval system, without the prior written permission of the publisher. Twelve Hachette Book Group 237 Park Avenue New York, NY 10017 www.HachetteBookGroup.com Twelve is an imprint of Grand Central Publishing. The Twelve name and logo are trademarks of Hachette Book Group, Inc. The publisher is not responsible for websites (or their content) that are not owned by the publisher. Printed in the United States of America First Edition: October 2011 10 9 8 7 6 5 4 3 2 1 LCCN: 2011935711 ISBN: 978-0-446-57643-7 As of February 27, 2014, this work is licensed under a Creative Commons Attribution-NonCommercial License. bit.ly/CC-BYNC4 To the million Arnold Hiatts that this revolution will need Contents Preface xi Introduction 1 PART I: The Nature of This Disease 11 1. Good Souls, Corrupted 13 2. Good Questions, Raised 21 3. 1 + 1 = 37 PART II: Tells 41 4. Why Don’t We Have Free Markets? 43 5. Why Don’t We Have Efficient Markets? 53 6. Why Don’t We Have Successful Schools? 61 7. Why Isn’t Our Financial System Safe? 67 Where Were the Regulators? 84 8. What the “Tells” Tell Us 87 PART III: Beyond Suspicion: Congress’s Corruption 89 9.
    [Show full text]
  • Congressional Record United States Th of America PROCEEDINGS and DEBATES of the 115 CONGRESS, FIRST SESSION
    E PL UR UM IB N U U S Congressional Record United States th of America PROCEEDINGS AND DEBATES OF THE 115 CONGRESS, FIRST SESSION Vol. 163 WASHINGTON, TUESDAY, JULY 25, 2017 No. 125 House of Representatives The House met at 10 a.m. and was caster with my colleague, Representa- cation and hands-on skills that they called to order by the Speaker pro tem- tive SMUCKER. can use right out of high school in pore (Mr. JOHNSON of Louisiana). Thaddeus Stevens College of Tech- skills-based education programs or in f nology provides a bridge out of poverty colleges like Thaddeus Stevens College for some of the poorest citizens of of Technology. By modernizing the DESIGNATION OF SPEAKER PRO Pennsylvania through a high-skill, Federal investment in CTE programs, TEMPORE high-wage technical education. Grad- we will be able to connect more edu- The SPEAKER pro tempore laid be- uates are filling the skills gap in Amer- cators with industry stakeholders and fore the House the following commu- ica, as there is a 99 percent placement close the skills gap that is in this coun- nication from the Speaker: for graduates of its high-demand pro- try. There are good jobs out there, but WASHINGTON, DC, grams. people need to be qualified to get them. July 25, 2017. Founded in 1905, Thaddeus Stevens I have proudly championed the I hereby appoint the Honorable MIKE JOHN- College of Technology educates Penn- Strengthening Career and Technical SON to act as Speaker pro tempore on this sylvania’s economically and socially Education for the 21st Century Act be- day.
    [Show full text]
  • The Article V Convention to Propose Constitutional Amendments: Contemporary Issues for Congress
    The Article V Convention to Propose Constitutional Amendments: Contemporary Issues for Congress Thomas H. Neale Specialist in American National Government April 11, 2014 Congressional Research Service 7-5700 www.crs.gov R42589 The Article V Convention to Propose Constitutional Amendments: Contemporary Issues for Congress Summary Article V of the U.S. Constitution provides two ways of amending the nation’s fundamental charter. Congress, by a two-thirds vote of both houses, may propose amendments to the states for ratification, a procedure used for all 27 current amendments. Alternatively, if the legislatures of two-thirds of the states apply, 34 at present, Congress “shall call a Convention for proposing Amendments....” This alternative, known as an Article V Convention, has yet to be implemented. This report examines the Article V Convention, focusing on contemporary issues for Congress. CRS Report R42592, The Article V Convention for Proposing Constitutional Amendments: Historical Perspectives for Congress examines the procedure’s constitutional origins and history and provides an analysis of related state procedures. Significant developments in this issue have occurred recently: in March 2014, the Georgia Legislature applied for a convention to consider a balanced federal budget amendment, revoking its rescission of an earlier application; in April 2014, Tennessee took similar action. While both applications are valid, they may revive questions as to the constitutionality of rescissions of state applications for an Article V Convention and whether convention applications are valid indefinitely. Either issue could have an impact on the prospects for a convention. In other recent actions, the legislatures of Ohio, in November 2013, and Michigan, in March 2014, applied to Congress for an Article V Convention to consider a balanced federal budget amendment; these are the first new state applications since 1982 and are also the 33rd and 34th applications for the balanced budget amendment convention.
    [Show full text]
  • The Campaign Legal Center Et Al. Amicus Brief in Support of Appellee
    No. 12-536 ================================================================ In The Supreme Court of the United States --------------------------------- --------------------------------- SHAUN MCCUTCHEON, ET AL., Appellants, v. FEDERAL ELECTION COMMISSION, Appellee. --------------------------------- --------------------------------- On Appeal From The United States District Court For The District Of Columbia --------------------------------- --------------------------------- BRIEF OF THE CAMPAIGN LEGAL CENTER, AARP, ASIAN AMERICANS ADVANCING JUSTICE, ASIAN AMERICAN LEGAL DEFENSE AND EDUCATION FUND, COMMON CAUSE, CITIZENS FOR RESPONSIBILITY AND ETHICS IN WASHINGTON, THE LEAGUE OF WOMEN VOTERS OF THE UNITED STATES, PROGRESSIVES UNITED AND PUBLIC CAMPAIGN AS AMICI CURIAE IN SUPPORT OF APPELLEE --------------------------------- --------------------------------- TREVOR POTTER Counsel of Record J. GERALD HEBERT TARA MALLOY PAUL S. RYAN MEGAN MCALLEN THE CAMPAIGN LEGAL CENTER 215 E Street, N.E. Washington, D.C. 20002 (202) 736-2200 [email protected] Counsel for Amici Curiae ================================================================ COCKLE LEGAL BRIEFS (800) 225-6964 WWW.COCKLELEGALBRIEFS.COM i TABLE OF CONTENTS Page TABLE OF AUTHORITIES ................................. iv INTEREST OF AMICI CURIAE ......................... 1 SUMMARY OF ARGUMENT .............................. 1 ARGUMENT ........................................................ 4 I. The Real-World Consequence of Elimi- nating the Aggregate Contribution Limits
    [Show full text]
  • Political Money: Deregulating American Politics, Selected Writings
    Hoover Press : Anderson DP5 HPANNE0700 01-05-00 rev2 page 135 Where Are We Now? The Current State of Campaign Finance Law Trevor Potter This selection is from Campaign Finance Reform: A Sourcebook, ed. Anthony Corrado, Thomas E. Mann, Dan Ortiz, Trevor Potter, and Frank Sorauf (Wash- ington, D.C.: Brookings Institution Press, 1997), pp. 5–24. In this article Trevor Potter, former member and chairman of the Federal Election Commission and now a partner in a Washington law firm, provides a systematic and reliable review of existing campaign finance law—the statutes and the regulations of the Federal Election Commission. The federal election laws were written broadly by Congress in 1971 and 1974 to cover all money spent “in connection with” or “for the purpose of influencing” federal elections. The intent of Congress was to regulate all funds that might be considered federal election related. However, the Supreme Court in Buckley v. Valeo, 424 U.S. 1 (1976), and subse- quent cases, has defined these statutory phrases to have a much more limited reach. The Court held that the activity covered by the federal election laws must be narrowly and clearly defined so as not to “chill” speech protected by the First Amendment and to provide notice of regulation to speakers. This chapter describes the regulated portion of the federal campaign finance system (contribution limits) and the use of “soft” and “issue advocacy” money to influence federal elections beyond the reach of the federal election laws. It also describes the many entities engaged in political speech and spending, from party commit- tees to labor unions to 501(c)(3) and (c)(4) organizations.
    [Show full text]
  • “Project Censored's List of the Top Stories That Get Very Little
    “Project Censored’s list of the top stories that get very little mainstream me- dia traction should in fact drive the reporting agendas of every major news outlet. These 25 stories are clearly the most consequential of the year, and what is scary in looking at the list is how obvious it is that silencing reports of these themes protects corrupt governments and corporate gatekeepers. Project Censored is a lifeline to the world’s most urgent and significant stories.” —Naomi Wolf, author of the bestselling books The Beauty Myth; The End of America; and Give Me Liberty “The systematic exposure of censored stories by Project Censored has been an important contribution.” —Howard Zinn, author of A People’s History of the United States “Project Censored . has evolved into a deep, wide, and utterly engross- ing exercise to unmask censorship, self-censorship, and propaganda in the mass media.” —Ralph Nader, consumer advocate, lawyer, author “[Project Censored] is a clarion call for truth telling.”—Daniel Ellsberg, The Pentagon Papers “[Project Censored] shows how the American public has been bamboozled, snookered, and dumbed down by the corporate media. It is chock-full of ‘ah- ha’ moments where we understand just how we’ve been fleeced by bank- sters, stripped of our civil liberties, and blindly led down a path of never- ending war.” —Medea Benjamin, author of Drone Warfare, and cofounder of Global Exchange and CODEPINK “Project Censored . not only shines a penetrating light on the American Empire and all its deadly, destructive, and deceitful actions, it does so at a time when the Obama administration is mounting a fierce effort to silence truth-tellers and whistleblowers.
    [Show full text]
  • The Reporterpublished by the American Law Institute
    VOLUME 36 • NUMBER 2 WINTER 2014 The ReporterPublished By The American Law Institute DEDICATED TO CLARIFYING AND IMPROVING THE LAW Richard L. Revesz of NYU Is ALI Director Designate In late January, the Council of University, to work with ALI The American Law Institute President Roberta Cooper Ramo announced a transition in as a search committee. The leadership as Richard L. Revesz search committee unanimously of New York University School recommended Professor Revesz, of Law was named Director whose appointment was approved Designate. An ALI member unanimously by ALI’s Council. since 1991, Professor Revesz is the Lawrence King Professor of ALI President Roberta Ramo Law and Dean Emeritus at NYU said: “In more than 90 years of and will remain a member of working toward law reform, we NYU’s full-time faculty. He will have had only five Directors, work with ALI Director Lance and each one was a giant in the Liebman until May 2014, when law. In Richard Revesz, we have Professor Liebman will complete found another major legal figure his 15-year directorship. to carry on the essential work of clarifying, modernizing, and The Nominating Committee of improving the law.” the ALI Council appointed Chief Judge Diane P. Wood of the U.S. President Ramo said she was “especially happy because Court of Appeals for the Seventh NYU Law Dean Emeritus and Lance is so enthusiastic about Circuit and Gerhard Casper, ALI Director Designate Richard L. Revesz President Emeritus of Stanford his successor. The ALI will continued on page 2 Inside… X The President’s Letter Chairs Selected for Regional News from Philadelphia, Without Snow Advisory Groups pages 6-7 In a brilliant, prescient moment of scheduling, the Council of the ALI met in Philadelphia in January the week before a crippling snowstorm hit the area.
    [Show full text]
  • Structuring the Inquiry Into Advocacy, Vol. I
    NONPROFIT ADVOCACY AND THE POLICY PROCESS A SEMINAR SERIES Structuring the Inquiry into Advocacy VOLUME 1 Edited by Elizabeth J. Reid The Urban Institute NONPROFIT ADVOCACY AND THE POLICY PROCESS A SEMINAR SERIES Structuring the Inquiry into Advocacy VOLUME 1 Edited by Elizabeth J. Reid The Urban Institute Acknowledgments We wish to thank the seminar cohosts, Evelyn Brody and Frances Hill, the authors and seminar participants, and many others who contributed valuable insights to the seminars and to the volume. Maria Montilla, Jeff Krehely, Nick Stengel, and Pho Palmer all provided valuable assistance to the project. We are grateful for the sup- port of the Robert Sterling Clark Foundation, the Nathan Cummings Foundation, and the Surdna Foundation, Inc. Nonprofit Advocacy and the Policy Process: A Seminar Series Advisory Panel Members Audrey Alvarado Debra Minkoff National Council for Yale University Nonprofit Associations Department of Sociology Elizabeth T. Boris John Pomeranz Center on Nonprofits and Philanthropy Alliance for Justice Evelyn Brody Elizabeth J. Reid Chicago-Kent College Center on Nonprofits and Philanthropy Illinois Institute of Technology The Urban Institute School of Law Peter Shiras Rosemary E. Fei Independent Sector Silk, Adler & Colvin C. Eugene Steuerle Frances Hill The Urban Institute University of Miami School of Law Leslie Lenkowsky Indiana University Center on Philanthropy Copyright © October 2000. The Urban Institute. All rights reserved. Except for short quotes, no part of this book may be reproduced or utilized in any form or by any means, electronic or mechanical, in- cluding photocopying, recording, or by information storage or retrieval system, without written per- mission from the Urban Institute.
    [Show full text]
  • Anthony Corrado
    ANTHONY CORRADO Department of Government Colby College 5302 Mayflower Hill Waterville, Maine 04901 (207) 859-5302 (207) 859-5229 fax email: [email protected] EDUCATION: 1990 Boston College, Ph.D., Political Science 1982 Catholic University, M.A., Political Science 1979 Catholic University, B.A., Political Science, Summa Cum Laude CURRENT POSITION: Professor of Government, Colby College, 2001-2003; 2008- Charles A. Dana Professor of Government, Colby College, 2003-2008 Associate Professor, Department of Government, Colby College, 1994-2001 Assistant Professor, Department of Government, Colby College, 1989-1994 Instructor, Department of Government, Colby College, 1986-1989 PROFESSIONAL ACTIVITIES AND POSITIONS Nonresident Senior Fellow, Governance Studies, The Brookings Institution, 1999-2003; 2005-present Visiting Fellow, Governance Studies, The Brookings Institution, 2004 Chair, Board of Trustees, The Campaign Finance Institute, 2000-present Member, Advisory Commission on Election Law, American Bar Association Standing Committee on Election Law, 1994-2008; Chair, 2001-2005 Special Advisor, American Bar Association Standing Committee on Election Law, 2009- present Member, Board of Trustees, Campaign Legal Center, Washington, DC, 2003-present Member, Research Advisory Board, Committee for Economic Development, Washington, DC, 2006-present Member, Advisory Board, The Reform Institute, Alexandria, VA, 2001-2008 Member, Advisory Board, The Campaign Disclosure Project, Los Angeles, CA (Joint project sponsored by the California Voter Foundation
    [Show full text]
  • Citizens United Harms Democracy & Top 5 Ways We’Re Fighting to Take Democracy Back
    Top 5 Ways Citizens United Harms Democracy & Top 5 Ways We’re Fighting to Take Democracy Back liz kennedy n the five years since the Supreme Court’s Citizens United decision the dominance of big money over politics and policy has grown, seemingly without restraint and with dire consequences for representative self-government. A funct ioning democracy Irequires a government responsive to people considered as political equals, where we each have a say in the public policy decisions that affect our lives. It is profoundly anti-democratic for anyone to be able to purchase political power, and when a small elite makes up a donor class that is able to shape our government and our public policy. It’s not just the amount of money being spent on campaigns and to lobby our elected representatives—which is on the rise and in- creasingly secret.1 The problem is that our current system for fund- ing elections allows a few people and special interests to have much more power over the direction of our country than the vast majority of Americans, who have different views on public policy than the wealthy elite.2 We’ve been fighting to control the improper influence of money in government, whether from wealthy individuals or cor- porate interests, since the founding of our republic.3 But we are at a low point, where large financial interests wield tremendous political power, and much of the blame rests squarely on the Supreme Court and its campaign finance decisions. Americans across the political spectrum understand that our cur- rent rules for using money in politics give the wealthy greater polit- ical power and prevent us from having an equal chance to influence 2015 • 1 the political process,4 and that government is not serving our inter- ests but rather serving special interests.5.
    [Show full text]
  • Capitalist) Intermediaries: Freedom, Democracy, and Participation in the Economy and Culture
    tripleC 14(1): 1-17, 2015 http://www.triple-c.at Skip the (Capitalist) Intermediaries: Freedom, Democracy, and Participation in the Economy and Culture Forrest Perry Department of Philosophy, Saint Xavier University, Chicago, U.S., [email protected] Abstract: A significant parallel can be drawn between a socialist argument about how to regulate property in the means of production and the liberal theorist Lawrence Lessig’s argument about how to regulate property in ideas. The two are particularly alike in the emphasis they place on the kind of participation—and the resulting freedom and democracy—enabled by having access to the means of production. Highlighting the parallel could help socialists and liberal theorists of intellectual property to see how they might advance each other’s causes: socialism could eliminate the threat of privatization of the means of producing culture that liberals like Lessig rightly worry about; if the arguments about ownership of ideas made by Lessig and others like him end up gaining currency, then arguments about ownership of the means of production made by socialist theorists could have more resonance with larger numbers of people than is currently the case. Keywords: socialism, capitalism, Internet, copyright, means of production Acknowledgement: I would like to thank Tony Smith (Department of Philosophy and Religious Studies and De- partment of Political Science, Iowa State University) for his insightful comments on a draft of this article. There is “Communism at the core of our Constitution’s protection of intellectual property” (Lessig 2006, 184). The prominent Internet law theorist Lawrence Lessig makes this claim in his discussion of the “copyright clause” of the U.S.
    [Show full text]