Bravo CT Dems!

Yesterday, I reported that CT Dems were considering a proposal to cut their premier public funding system in the 2016 election cycle. 

Today, I am happy to report that CT Dems are apparently backing away from that bad idea. 

You can thank the CT leaders with the courage to lead here.

Hey CT Dems, seriously?!

Apparently (CTMirror, Washington Times, Hartford Courant) the Democratic leadership in the Connecticut Senate is about to kill the public funding of elections in Connecticut for the 2016 cycle. 

Connecticut is one of three states with serious public funding for state officials (CT, AZ, and ME). In the first year after its enactment, 78% of elected representatives opted into the system. But now, the Dems are talking about killing the program — which of course would be wonderful for the lobbyists in Connecticut, and further strengthen the power of SuperPACs in that state.

This is officially #REALLYbadNEWS. A week after Maine voted to strengthened its own public funding system, and Seattle voted to establish an innovative voucher program to fund city elections (here’s Paul Blumenthal’s piece about both), Connecticut should be talking about how to make their program better, not dead. 

If you’ve got friends in the state, please ask them to ask the Democratic leadership what’s going on? You can reach the President of the Senate, Martin Looney (D-New Haven), here.

We Democrats tell ourselves that we’re leaders on this issue — everywhere, including Connecticut. Let’s make that true. 

(More from CommonCause and EveryVoice).

Talks with Tess (my daughter, age 6)

Tess: Papa, now that you won’t be President, maybe you should work for the Red Sox?

Me: The Boston Red Sox? 

Tess: Yes, them. They’re an important local business. I’m sure you could help them. 

Me: You mean as a manager? 

Tess: No, on the team. You could help them become great, even if you can’t be President.

Me: <begin: first real smile in way too long>

On suspending my campaign

(ICYMI: Just at the moment the polls looked like they were going to qualify me to get into the second debate—every poll since Monmouth that included my name had me at 1%—the DNC changed the rules, so that nothing that happens now could qualify me for the second debate.)

image

Grateful to all the friends who’ve written with kindness and concern after the announcement this afternoon that because the DNC has changed the rules for the debate, I have suspended my campaign. 

I’m fine. Really. 

There’s a reality that the will to reform can’t bend — like mortgage payments (first lesson for presidential candidate wanna-be’s: be a Senator first, so your salary can be paid while you’re running for President), and the need to raise money to keep a campaign alive. I was eager and happy to ask for support for the campaign when there was a prospect of getting into the debates. When there wasn’t, I couldn’t in good faith make that ask. When that’s true, a campaign must end. 

I will miss more than anything the one bit I wasn’t sure I’d like — speaking to voters to ask for their vote. That was greatest fun I’ve ever had (professionally) because so quickly do you see how much people really care. Those exchanges — at the senior center where we launched the campaign, at the NH and Iowa events after the launch, etc. — were the best thing in the world. This part I loved. 

But I will regret forever not having a real chance at the debates to press the one real issue that is before us as a democracy, and that the other candidates just are not addressing: At the core of our democracy there is a hole where the Framers meant there to be a Congress. That crippled and corrupted institution will block progress until it is fixed. We desperately need a politics that can talk about that, and begin to talk about how it could be fixed. That is not just “campaign finance reform.” That is not just about “getting money out of politics.” It is an agenda for reforming a failed institution, by building on the cross-partisan recognition there is that this critical part of our democracy is broken.

We need that issue to become central, because that is the only way that failed institution will ever be fixed. And fixing that failed institution is the only way we will ever have any any chance of addressing sensibly the long list of problems this nation must address. 

This a hard point to make in the middle of a political party. Maybe it is a point better made outside of party primaries. We’ll see. For now, there’s just some sleep and time with the kids to think about. Seriously happy time ahead. 

Thanks again to all.  

Washington Free Beacon: Wrong

There’s a pretty salacious report on the Washington Free Beacon about our fundraising campaign. The claim is false. 

As many news outlets reported at the time, our goal was to raise $1M in crowdfunding pledges — including amounts paid immediately and amounts pledged in advance — by September 7. We beat that goal by a day.

We collected on those pledges both before and after the deadline. Of the pledges made before the deadline, only $9,800 was ultimately withdrawn from our total as no longer considered reliable. Pledges also include commitments of monthly contributions. Though the standard practice is to count monthly contributions at a multiple of 9 (so a $50 monthly pledge is valued at $450), we counted them at a multiple of 6 (so a $50 monthly pledge is valued at $300). In any case, they are a small proportion of the total amount pledged.

It is the nature of truth these days to be viewed through a partisan lens. But I’d be happy to have my regular critic, former FEC Chairman Brad Smith, verify the claims I’ve made, by contacting the people who pledged in advance. I’d trust him to report the truth accurately. 

Republic, Lost v2 released

image

A radically new version of Republic, Lost  went on sale this week. Ben Carson hasn’t noticed, but it is actually hard to promote a book as a candidate. So here’s my link from my personal blog. If you hurry now, you can get the first printing, in which I misspell “Jon Snow.” All evidence of my cluelessness re that has already been removed from the Kindle edition. 

The book is dedicated to aaronsw.

Granny D on Lessig.org

Eleven years ago, Doris Haddock, aka Granny D — the incredible woman who at the age of 88 walked 3200 miles across America with a sign on her chest that said “campaign finance reform” — was a candidate for Senate in New Hampshire. Long before I took up her cause, she asked to be a guest blogger on my blog. I was honored to have her write for me. 

Here are the posts (with a brief excerpt from each): 

From Granny D — October 15, 2004

…Some Bush apologists are now circulating Internet messages to the effect that the death rate in Iraq compares reasonably with the murder rate in this city or that. This is their new standard! At least they know they are comparing crimes …

Digital Equip. vs Wal-Mart — October 15, 2004

… Each company has responsibility for its own success or failure. Yet they operate within an economic environment, and our leadership makes important differences in what kinds of businesses succeed and fail…

Free markets are too expensive — October 17, 2004

…Speaking of history, does anyone care to compare the dollars involved with Teapot Dome with the dollars involved with Enron, Halliburton and all the other inside scandals in the current White House? …

Whose economy is it? — October 19, 2004

…Wouldn’t real democracy be a better kind of free market–with We the People really free? It is a given that nations with the most poverty have the least democracy, as people do not chose to be poor and exploited if they have a say in it….

My Big Debate Looms! — October 19, 2004

…I’m just two nights away from my CSPAN debate with Senator Judd Gregg, who seems to want to keep his Senate seat, and I’m very nervous. It is hard for a 94 year-old woman from the woods to think about going against a career politician lawyer, but I got myself into this mess…

Here I go–Granny D — October 21, 2004

…In less than an hour I will go into the lion’s den to debate Judd Gregg. He, as you may know, is the fellow who prepped Geo. Bush for his debates. My only hope is that George returns the favor!…

Granny D signing off — October 21, 2004

Well, the debate was fun, but frightening, of course. There were so many times when I felt like a fool–not finding my words or letting some golden opportunities just slide by. But it was wonderful to be finally looking him in the eye and speaking the truth right at him. WMUR has an online poll of viewers. Those who though I won: 79%. Those who though Judd Gregg won: 20%. So I thank my many coaches on this site,…

We miss her, we, this democracy. 

AJ+ Questions

Lawrence Lessig Sits Down With AJ+

2016 Democratic candidate Lawrence Lessig breaks it down for AJ+.Here are seven things that most other candidates are scared to say:

Posted by AJ+ on Friday, October 9, 2015

So when exactly did democracy become a “gimmick”?

Reason has a short and fair piece summarizing for the libertarian right the issues around the debate scuffle. Midway through, however, it repeats something that others have said, and that I just, honestly, cannot understand. Says the great Jesse Walker (and for anyone who knows our history, you know I mean that with pure sincerity; Jesse’s written smartly about the culture wars for decades): 

The gimmick of the Lessig campaign is that he’s pledging to push for one major bill if he’s elected—a collection of electoral reforms he’s calling the Citizen Equality Act

“Gimmick”? 

When did achieving a democracy [and for those on the right who are going into a tantrum because I have used this word, please see the fn below] become a “gimmick”? The disease of this Republic is corruption, and equality (of citizens, bracket wealth) is the cure. 

You might say this Republic suffers no disease. That’s fine. You might say it needs a different remedy. Ok. But I don’t see how crafting a hack to address this fundamental problem is fairly called a “gimmick.”

FN: “Democracy” — There’s a certain set of souls, usually from the right, who go ballistic anytime anyone refers to America as a “democracy.” There’s no basis for that. The framers gave us a “Republic.” By a “Republic” they meant a “representative democracy.” Just as a red hat is a hat, a representative democracy is a democracy. True, it’s not a direct democracy (and thank god it isn’t). But it is a democracy.